Preamble

The House met at half-past Two O'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH WATERWAYS (NO. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time, and passed, with an amendment.

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL
(By Order)

Considered; to be read the Third time.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Local Government Reform

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans for reform of local government in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no specific plans at present affecting the future of local government in Scotland.

Mr. McAllion: The last time the Tories met in conference in Scotland the Minister told them that any reform of local government could be justified only if it led to greater economy and efficiency and if it made local government more responsive to the needs of the Scottish people. Does the Minister accept that his poll tax reforms are less economical, as the collection will cost £28 million more every year than the present rating system? As they are demonstrably less efficient than rates as a mean of tax gathering, and as they respond to neither the needs nor the wishes of the Scottish people, who have overwhelmingly rejected them and despise them as a sop to the rich—which they are—does the Minister accept that he should either resign or stand condemned as a monumental hypocrite, which Opposition Members know him to be?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word "hypocrite".

Mr. McAllion: Under your instructions, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word "hypocrite".

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The purpose of the community charge was to introduce accountability. Reform of the rating system would not inevitably necessitate the reduction of local government to one tier. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish Tory party conference. I am well aware of the representations from that party and many others, including representations from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) who said on 27 January:
there is a case for a move towards a one-tier, all-purpose local authority below an assembly"—[Official Report, 27 January 1988; Vol. 126, c. 327.]
We are anxious to encourage informed debate on this subject and we will look very carefully at any constructive proposals and particularly at the quality of the evidence. All such proposals will receive the most careful consideration.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Further to the second point made by my hon. Friend, does he agree that while there might be a case for a modest change, the move to a single-tier system is simply a superficial gimmick which would increase costs and inevitably lead to a great deal of disruption? Does he further agree that the watchwords for Scottish local authorities should be "cost-effectiveness" and "increased accountability" through the community charge, not spurious schemes for structured reform?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. If a case can be made for the reform of local government, it must be on the basis of more effective and accountable local authorities within the existing constitutional arrangements.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the increasing interference by this over-centralising Government into the affairs of local government, is it any wonder that an increasing number of people in Scotland are concluding that the best way to restore and improve local democracy in Scotland would be to set up a Scottish parliament with economic as well as legislative powers, including the power to introduce a one-tier system of local government?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have no plans for devolution. We do not want more government; we want better government.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the Minister is really serious about striving towards greater accountability in the context of the poll tax or the reform of local government, will he consider the introduction of a sensible system of proportional representation? Is it fair that in the district elections in Edinburgh in May the Conservatives won only 23 seats, the Labour party won 33 seats and both parties secured only 36·5 per cent. of the poll?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned an interesting case. More people in Edinburgh voted Conservative than Labour. However, I cannot give any undertaking to support proportional representation. We prefer the system in which people may vote for a person with a direct tie to his constituency and not to strengthen the party list system.

Ravenscraig Steelworks

Mr. Buchan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions have taken place between


his Department and the British Steel Corporation concerning the future of the strip mill capacity at Ravenscraig steelworks; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Following a meeting on 14 July, Sir Robert Scholey wrote to me confirming that, at present, there is no reason for the corporation to make plans to close the Ravenscraig hot strip mill.

Mr. Buchan: Has the Secretary of State seen the headline in today's Glasgow Herald, which says
MacGregor offers to look at Ravenscraig"?
That is the most ominous headline that one has read in the past decade. I hope that, after the discussions, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make it clear that the Scottish steel industry is not up for trafficking, that the buck stops with him and that he will carry the responsibility. I noticed that he was described as one of the best Secretaries of State for Scotland that we have ever had——

Mr. Home Robertson: Who by?

Mr. Buchan: By the Prime Minister. That is the kiss of death from the black widow if ever there was one.

Mr. Rifkind: I notice that the hon. Gentleman has rejected the view of his hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) about the splitting up of the British Steel Corporation. The BSC is performing extremely effectively at present and, to be completely fair, credit must be given to its management, who have found markets that will purchase the product made by the excellent work force at Ravenscraig. Such excellent teamwork offers the best short-term and long-term prospects for Ravenscraig.

Sir Hector Monro: Bearing in mind Ravenscraig's success in recent years, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that any reduction in output in any part of the plant will have a detrimental effect on the Scottish economy? Will he do all that he can to encourage the British Steel Corporation to invest in Ravenscraig, to ensure the plant's long-term future?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not know whether a reduction in output would have a significant effect on the Scottish economy, as only 4 per cent. of the British Steel Corporation's products are utilised within Scotland. Ravenscraig's major importance is the employment that it produces for Lanarkshire. Investment has been made in the strip mill in recent years, and I believe that the Arthur Young report, which is often referred to by Opposition Members, said that there was no economic case for new investment in Ravenscraig at the present time.

Dr. Bray: Is the Secretary of State aware that the restrictive strategy of the British Steel Corporation is a continuing threat to Ravenscraig? It seeks to restrict capacity and output to force up prices to the limit that European competition will bear. While the immediate threat to the hot mill will depend on when the next dip in demand occurs, the threat to Ravenscraig will remain until the Government take action to impose on Britain's steel industry a genuinely competitive regime to which Ravenscraig can properly contribute.

Mr. Rifkind: The actions of British Steel's management have, in part, led to the hot strip mill, which some months

ago was operating at reduced capacity, working flat out. Clearly, that steel could not be produced unless there were markets for it. It is to the credit of the management that those markets have been identified. Over the past few years the Government and the British Steel Corporation have insisted on rationalisation and modernisation of the industry, which is why we have a steel industry which, instead of making a loss of over £1 billion a year, as it did in 1979, is making a healthy profit. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a profitable steel corporation is a much better prospect for the long-term future of all its plants, including Ravenscraig, than one that makes a loss of billions of pounds a year.

Mr. Salmond: How will Ravenscraig's prospects be affected by the elevation of a sudeten Scot—the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who has joined the Government and therefore left Scottish Question Time, for which we are thankful? Will not the anti-Scottish bias that is so evident among the British Steel Corporation's senior management now be accompanied by anti-Scottish bias in the Department of Trade and Industry?

Mr. Rifkind: Only the Scottish National party could interpret the appointment of a Scot to the United Kingdom Government as being to the disadvantage of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman has a lower opinion of his compatriots than have Conservative Members.

Mrs. Fyfe: What calculations has the Minister made of the number of non-steel jobs that will be lost if Ravenscraig is closed?

Mr. Rifkind: Various calculations have been made, but as there is not the slightest prospect of Ravenscraig closing, certainly in the near future—or, I believe in the longer future—such questions are purely hypothetical. I have emphasised that Ravenscraig is of major importance to the economy of Lancashire. Clearly, there would be grave implications for the economy of the locality if Ravenscraig were to close. The combination of Government policy and the qualities of the industry's work force and management mean that there are no reasons to consider the closure of the strip mill or, in the next few years, Ravenscraig itself.
If the Labour party's policies had been pursued, Ravenscraig could not have hoped to be competitive in world markets, especially as quotas have now disappeared in the European Community.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who is deploying his excellent talents for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that this year alone Ravenscraig has broken 16 production records, and that it has received £12 million of investment over the past three years? If that is kept up, will it not be the best guarantee of the continuation of Ravenscraig?

Mr. Rifkind: The Department of Trade and Industry's gain is a loss for Scottish Question Time, I will confirm what my hon. Friend said in the latter part of his question, and repeat the important rider that it would be of little value for Ravenscraig to have this superb maximum output if Sir Robert Scholey and his colleagues in management had not been working to find markets for


that output. That combined effort by Sir Robert Scholey, his management team and the work force at Ravenscraig, has substantially increased not only the short-term but the longer-time prospects of Ravenscraig.

Mr. Dewar: The Secretary of State might not have been so optimistic about the increased Scottish presence in the Department of Trade and Industry had he had the pleasure of reading the articles about Scotland written by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) for his local press, and the dismissive and wounding comments that he made about expenditure in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State be a little more specific and go a little further than he has so far? As he knows, the guarantee for the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig lasts only until 1989, and in view of his correspondence with Sir Robert Scholey and his suggestion that closure was not a possibility in the near future, will he give the guarantee that he conspicuously refused to give in the recent Scottish Grand Committee debate, and make it clear that there is no possibility of the mill closing in 1989 when the transitional protection ends?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) was drawing attention to the level of Government expenditure in the constituency of Glasgow, Garscadden, compared with Government expenditure in Mid-Worcestershire. I can fairly say for my hon. Friend's point of view that there may have been a difference between the two totals to the disadvantage of his constituents.
As to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have already said that the view of the British Steel Corporation is that it has no reason to plan for the closure of the hot strip mill. Clearly, it is for BSC and the market that it supplies to determine the prospects for all parts of BSC. I am not in the business of giving guarantees on matters for which I do not have ministerial responsibility. I have not had, I do not have and I will not have ministerial responsibility for this matter. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to join me in expressing delight that, because of the combined efforts of management and work force, there is no economic reason for anyone to wish to consider the closure of the hot strip mill at Ravenscraig.

Housing Standards

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to a wider definition and assessment of houses which are below tolerable standard.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend is currently reviewing the statutory tolerable standard as part of the proposed reform of the home improvement system.

Mr. Griffiths: Why is it taking the Secretary of State so long to review this matter when so much hardship is being caused to many home owners and council tenants in Scotland by the fact that their houses, which have leaking roofs and crumbling stone work, and are riddled with damp, do not come below a "tolerable standard" in his eyes? Why will he not accept the need for a housing condition survey, such as England and Wales have, to ensure that there is available to the House and the public of Scotland an appraisal of the terrible conditions in which so many Scots are housed today?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A housing conditions survey would cost about £5 million and that sum would have to come out of housing resources. Frankly, I would rather that local authorities had that sum now, and we believe that it would be better utilised on that basis.
It is important to remember that the primary responsibility for assessing housing needs rests with the local authorities, which have the greatest need for local information.
We propose to change the definition of "tolerable standard" and the new standard will include a fixed bath, shower or wash hand basin and the requirement that the house should be free from serious disrepair. We shall consider any representations about consultation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that the district council of Kincardine and Deeside has frozen all applications for home improvement grant? That has caused considerable confusion, especially as it has occurred so early in the financial year. Will my hon. Friend use his good offices and those of the Scottish Development Department to resolve the difficulties and confusion that have arisen so that those who have a genuine wish to improve their houses—some of which are below the tolerable standard—are given the proper opportunity to do so?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: This year £625,000 was awarded as the non-housing revenue account capital allocation to Kincardine and Deeside Council, which represents 87 per cent. of its bid and is above the Scottish average. The problem for the district council is that it appears that it has over-committed the resources made available to it. We have already made it clear that officials will be glad to discuss the problems with the council as soon as it wishes.
The resources available for housing were allocated in March, but if additional resources are identified later in the year the needs of all local authorities will be taken into account.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Minister aware that 250,000 Scottish people now live in damp and intolerable housing conditions? Is the Government's decision not to raise housing standards based on the fact that they cannot cope with present Scottish housing conditions?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is extremely desirable that local authorities should carry out their own housing surveys. We are helping them to do so by sending out an information pack and a detailed brief on how best to conduct those surveys. The results of those surveys can be used in targeting resources to those areas that local authorities consider as priority areas.
The hon. Gentleman exaggerated when he quoted the figure. The information from local authorities suggests that, on 31 March 1987, a total of 119,000 local authority houses required treatment for condensation; 38,100 required treatment for dampness and 78,400 required treatment for dampness and condensation. They are somewhat different from the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted.

Mr. Darling: If the Minister does not want to spend money on conducting a survey, will he make money available to councils, such as Edinburgh district, where all applications for home improvement grants have been frozen? Is he aware that that council has received more


than 8,000 applications, some of which date back to 1983, which cannot be dealt with because of the Government's constant policy changes and because the Government will not make money available for essential repairs? That is causing misery and anger to a growing number of people.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The bid put in by Edinburgh district council this year for non-HRA spending was for £31 million and every penny of that bid was awarded to it. Since that time the district council has estimated that the cost of clearing the backlog of repairs is about £19 million more than it estimated a few months ago. Obviously we are giving careful consideration to that matter as well as to the problems of Glasgow. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are considering what can be done to assist those affected by Edinburgh council's astonishing miscalculation of the figures. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the total number of houses in Scotland below the tolerable standard has fallen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Only the figures. That number has fallen from 121,000 in 1979, under the Labour Government, to 54,000 in March 1987. If those figures are correct—I suspect that my hon. Friend will be able to confirm that they are—will he assure the House that the question from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) was not planted?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures have fallen substantially, from 121,000 to 54,000. We rely on the latest figures from local authorities. Dundee, for example, recently said that it had 1,000 more below tolerable standard—BTS— houses. That is why the figure is 54,000 today.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister live up to his responsibilities for once and acknowledge that a house affected by severe condensation, or a house with no bath or shower, is not a suitable or tolerable habitation for any Scottish family? Will he acknowledge that the official statistics, which were parroted by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris)—he is supposed to know about these things—are a scandalously complacent under-estimate of the number of squalid and unhealthy houses in which far too many Scots are compelled to live? Many of those houses are to be found in the Minister's precious private rented sector. What will he do about the shortfall in funds that local authorities need to deal with this scandalous problem?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is highly desirable that local authorities undertake the surveys for which we have given them the expert information. Then they can identify how best to target resources on priority areas.

Nurses

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines he has given to health boards with regard to the regrading of nurses.

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning nurse regarding.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The Scottish Home and Health Department issued written guidance covering

organisational and implementation arrangements to health boards on 13 May. Copies have been placed in the House Library.
I have received five letters on the subject and I shall be meeting representatives of the Royal College of Nursing on 8 August to discuss this.

Mr. Doran: We have become used to cynical manipulation of the figures, particularly by Conservative Members, when we discuss the Health Service. Is the Minister aware that a substantial proportion of the nurses who were supposed to receive the recently announced pay award of 15·9 per cent., of which the Government made great play, will get less than half that trumpeted amount? What calculations has he made of how the award will be distributed? How many of those who will receive it will get less than the advertised amount?

Mr. Forsyth: Speaking of the manipulation of figures, the hon. Gentleman should be accurate. The figure is 15·3 per cent., not 15·9 per cent. I am sure that he wants me to be accurate.
The hon. Gentleman probably knows that a review of grading is going on, and it is not possible at this stage to give the precise amount that each nurse will receive according to her grade. To ensure that every nurse gets some increase there has been an interim award of 4 per cent. The average increase will be 15·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should reflect that the Government whom he supported cut nurses' pay by more than 20 per cent.

Mr. McAvoy: In view of the Minister's announcement of his meeting with the nurses, will he give a commitment that he will make every possible effort to give positive reassurance to the nurses at that meeting that the principles of regrading will be honoured?

Mr. Forsyth: I shall be happy to give that assurance, of which I think the Royal College of Nursing is aware. We have taken steps to ensure that the health boards are given guidance and that management has enough training and expertise to carry out the grading review as quickly as possible. We expect it to be achieved by the end of October. A nursing sister with substantial clinical responsibilities on the ward will find that her real pay has improved by more than 50 per cent. since 1979 as a result of the Government's commitment to the Health Service and to nursing within it.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that a 44 per cent. increase in the real pay of nurses in Scotland since 1979, the regrading exercise, the pay increase and the hospital building programme north of the border show a real commitment to developing a high quality Health Service in Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Health Service has never been better funded and now has the biggest capital investment programme in its history. It has never had more doctors and nurses, and they have never been better paid. That is because of the success of the Government's economic policies in delivering the resources to provide that care. The last Labour Government failed the Health Service because their economic policies failed the nation.

Mr. Ernie Ross: The Minister has rattled off success stories in Scotland. Will he tell the House why it is that the nurses' representatives in the Health Service in Scotland


do not accept the Minister's statement? Will he also give a guarantee that the actual cost of the regrading will be met by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when it has been concluded? Will he answer the original question and tell us what guidelines he is giving?

Mr. Forsyth: The vast majority of nurses who eschew strike action are members of the Royal College of Nursing. The hon. Gentleman is referring to remarks made by the Confederation of Health Service Employees in Scotland. I deplore the campaign of rumour and innuendo that the confederation has mounted. It has suggested that nurses will be made redundant as a result of the regrading exercise. That is completely untrue. It has suggested that nurses' pay will be cut, which is also untrue. I can only imagine that such trade unions are piqued by the success of the Royal College of Nursing in delivering better terms and conditions for its members while not taking any part in strike action.

Sir Hector Monro: Bearing in mind that the Labour Government cut nurses' pay in real terms, does my hon. Friend agree that the present pay award has been well received by nurses? Is it not ludicrous that the Opposition should ask for an open cheque for the payment of the very large award that we have made, bearing in mind that the sum was recommended by an independent review body?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The 15·3 per cent. increase in the nurses' pay bill was calculated not by the Government, but by the review body. The Government gave a commitment to fund that cost, which amounts to £803 million for the United Kingdom and to £92 million for Scotland. That is a substantial additional resource for the Health Service, and a responsible Opposition should welcome that and give the Government credit for what they have achieved.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister will know that to fund the review body awards, including that for the nurses in the regrading exercise, he allocated £21·6 million to the Greater Glasgow health board. Has he read the minute of the finance and general purposes committee of the Greater Glasgow health board of Tuesday 3 May? Item 53 is headed "National Health Service pay body awards 1988–89" and paragraph 2 reads——

Mr. Speaker: Paraphrase it, please.

Mr. Galbraith: It was expected that the amount allocated—£21·6 million—would be £6 million less than the cost of the pay review body award. The minute goes on to say that the board would have to find the extra £6 million from its own reserves. Is that what the Minister means when he talks about fully funding the nurses' pay award? Why does the Minister constantly maintain that he will fund it fully, when he knows that he will not?

Mr. Forsyth: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman that the sums were based on the estimates that were made by the review body. I must confess that I have not read the minute to which he referred. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had no representations from the Greater Glasgow health board to that effect. Also, the board has taken the unusual step of refuting some of the scaremongering that has come from the trade unions and others. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to associate himself with such action.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Neil Hamilton: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect the new Scottish performance indicators package for National Health Service managers is expected to have on waiting lists.

Mr. Rifkind: The indicators will help to identify areas where management action is required to improve performance and to speed up the waiting list reductions, which have been stimulated by the extra money that I have made available.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although the performance indicator package is welcome, we still have a long way to go? The National Health Service is still flying blind, in as much as the cost of inputs is largely unknown and the value of outputs is largely unassessed. We need to go rather further than we have.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of a pamphlet that has been published today entitled "The NHS—a suitable case for treatment", which was written by the No Turning Back Group of Conservative Members and edited by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth)?[Interruption.] I know that that name has the same effect on Opposition Members as mirrors do on vampires, and therefore that it will appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. The essence of the argument is that we shall not solve the problems of the National Health Service until we move towards an internal market where hospitals——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Make it brief, please.

Mr. Hamilton: —sell their services to the district health authorities. It is only in that way that we shall improve the Health Service in the long term.

Mr. Rifkind: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenious way of publicising the document to which he referred. Naturally, I look forward to reading and studying its recommendations. The concept of an internal market within the Health Service is of increasing interest among those who work within it as a way of ensuring better service for the patients with the resources that are available.

Dr. Moonie: I am sure that the Secretary of State, unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), is well aware that a package of statistics will not improve waiting lists in Scotland. Does he agree that one way in which they can be improved is to back the findings of the Select Committee on Social Services, which has a majority of Conservative Members, and provide the resources that we have identified the NHS needs to perform its work adequately?

Mr. Rifkind: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Scottish Office does just that. For example, in the course of the current year we have allocated an extra £2 million to deal with waiting lists, the very subject with which his question deals, and, as a consequence, the number of patients treated in 1988–89 has been increased by 16,000 out-patients, 6,000 in-patients and over 3,000 day cases. We are seeking to undo the damage caused by the industrial action in the NHS in Scotland in earlier years, which led to an increase in waiting lists of some 30,000.

Rating Reform

Mr. Douglas: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the further advice which his Department is issuing to Scottish poll tax payers in order to facilitate knowledge of exempted categories.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): When registration officers send out the notifications in October and November to those whose names are on the register they will also send a supplementary notice detailing all the exemptions. This will enable people who may benefit from the exemptions to approach the registration officer about their entitlement to exemption.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister concede that at this stage there is room for alteration of the exemptions? During the recess, will he suggest that one way to be exempt from payment is to put one's father or mother into a local authority nursing home rather than retain him or her in the family home? Will he promulgate that? In addition, will he say clearly that one of the tricks that the Government have deplored is to remove from the rating system certain fishing owners, at a cost of £1·5 million, while those who desire exemption because of severe mental handicap will have to go through the humiliation of registering that fact, through their offspring, patients or relations, with a general practitioner in order to have it recorded that they are "unfit" to perform civic functions? Does the Minister accept that the whole question of exemptions blows a hole in accountability and that a Government who had one scintilla of Christian conscience would not promote such a piece of legislation?

Mr. Lang: Some of the exemptions remain to be prescribed in regulations, but I see no reason for expecting any of the exemptions, or indeed any of the regulations, to lead to any change in the domestic residential arrangements of any family. The value of the fishing rates concession is equal to one fiftieth of 1 per cent. of total local authority current expenditure.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Has my hon. Friend seen the report in this week's Glasgow Herald, on 22 July, that 12 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament have said publicly that they will not pay the community charge? Therefore, will he give the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who said in the same edition that there was no split in the Scottish Labour party on that issue, an opportunity to come here and explain how he squares the circle?

Mr. Lang: I have read the article to which my hon. Friend refers. A battle is raging within the Labour party over the community charge, between those who think that they should obey the law and the 12 members of the law-breaking tendency. There is also one special class which embraces the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr.Godman), who intend to obey the law, but whose wife does not. I have to tell him that the joint and several liability provision will cater for that.

Gaelic Language (TV Programmes)

Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received in favour of increased Gaelic language programmes on television in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Anns na dha no tri bhliadhnaichean a chaidh seachad tha sinn air tagraidhean fhaighinn o bhuill uasal,comhairlean ionadail agus buidhnean Gaidhlig.—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would prefer——

Mr. Speaker: What does that mean?

Mr. Forsyth: I did not realise that you did not have the Gaelic. It means:
In recent years a number of representations have been received from hon. Members, local authorities and organisations representing the Gaelic community.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I recognise the contribution which the media can make to the preservation of the Gaelic language and we have consistently encouraged the broadcasting authorities to provide a reasonable range of Gaelic programmes.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for his sterling efforts. May I assure him that he does not sound any more acceptable to the Opposition in Gaelic than he does in English? Will he take this opportunity to welcome the recent publication by Comunn Na Gaidhlig—that is the correct pronunciation—"Towards a Gaelic Television Service"? Will he say what input, if any, the Scottish Office will have to the Government's White Paper on broadcasting, particularly the degree of influence it could exert to redress the imbalance with the United Kingdom so that Gaelic in Scotland can enjoy the same sort of broadcasting support as Welsh does in Wales? It is high irony that STV and Grampian are contributing towards the Welsh broadcasting service, but we do not have specifically designated funding in that way in Scotland.

Mr. Forsyth: I cannot anticipate what will be in the White Paper. We have received copies of the document to which he referred and we shall study its proposals with interest. The hon. Gentleman might acknowledge that the BBC and the independent television companies in Scotland are planning to increase the time that they make available for broadcasting. I know that there is still concern. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) had a recent Adjournment debate and summarised that concern. We are sympathetic and we urge the Gaelic-speaking community to continue to put pressure on the broadcasting authorities, because it is a matter for them.
The hon. Gentleman will know that in Wales a considerable part of the Channel 4 take-up is given over to the language. The numbers are larger and the issues are difficult, but it is a matter that we shall bear in mind.

Mr. Macdonald: I congratulate the Minister on his admirable Gaelic and say "Meala naidheachd airson bruidhinn Gaidhlig agus rinn thu uamhasadh math."

Mr. Speaker: What does that mean?

Mr. Macdonald: Those are the kindest words I have ever spoken to the Minister.
I appreciate what the Minister said in his reply, but he must be aware by now that the broadcasting companies have made it clear that they cannot possibly increase Gaelic provision within their present financial constraints. Is it not the Government's responsibility to increase the financial allocation to the broadcasting authorities to enable them to provide a Gaelic television service or to map out other ways in which it might be done?

Mr. Forsyth: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
He asked about support for the broadcasting authorities. I understand that the problem is more one of scheduling and that the commitment is there on the part of the broadcasting authorities to do more. No doubt my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office will note what the hon. Gentleman said.
On the matter of giving specific financial support for Gaelic, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have increased the support for education authorities for the current year to £500,000 from £300,000. In addition, we are making available nearly £200,000 for grant-aid to organisations that work in support of Gaelic. I should mention that Grampian television is planning a series of programmes to support standard grade Gaelic. Gaelic is strengthening as a language and it has our support.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend accept that 95 per cent. of Scottish people do not know a word of Gaelic and that they want television programmes that they can enjoy and understand in the lingua franca?

Mr. Forsyth: What my hon. Friend says is true. There are 80,000 Gaels in Scotland, which is about 2 per cent. of the population. However, there are concentrations in particular communities. I see no conflict between giving stimulus and support to the Gaelic language and providing the required wider programming interests through the broadcasting authorities. I believe that the development of new technology will enable more broadcasting to be achievable, and that is a matter to which I hope the broadcasting authorities are turning their minds.

Rating Reform

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet (a) the Confederation of British Industry (Scotland), (b) the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), (c) Chambers of Commerce and (d) the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss the implementation of a uniform business rate.

Mr. Lang: The reform of business rates has been discussed with a number of Scottish business interests. No further meetings are planned at present.

Mr. Worthington: I find it amazing that the Minister continues to be complacent as always when he knows, as he has said in the past, that the Scottish business community is substantially disadvantaged, so that a Marks and Spencer store in Falkirk pays £166,000 in rates and a Marks and Spencer store of similar size in York pays £32,000. It is universally agreed that, after the revaluation in 1990, Scottish business will be further disadvantaged. Neither I nor the business community can understand why the Government wish to impose a higher tax on Scottish business than will be paid in England and Wales. Why is the Minister being so complacent?

Mr. Lang: The complacency is on the other side, when one reflects that the hon. Gentleman was once finance convenor of Strathclyde region. One of the disadvantages that Scottish businesses face is as a result of the depredations of high-spending Labour-controlled local authorities. However, I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that Scottish businesses will derive consider-able benefit from the index-linking provisions in the

Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987. If those provisions had been in force for the past five years, Scottish businesses would have had to pay £200 million less in rates than they have had to do.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Millan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the prospects for manufacturing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind: The prospects for manufacturing industry in Scotland are extremely favourable, Manufacturing output in the final quarter of 1987 was 4·7 per cent. up on the previous quarter and I expect further strong growth this year.

Mr. Millan: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important to manufacturing industry in Scotland that it should have available to it an efficient and economic electricity supply? Is he aware that today's Energy Select Committee's report on the Government's proposals for electricity privatisation is a devastating indictment of the proposals, showing them to be ill-thought-out and thoroughly muddled? It also shows that the so-called competition by comparison that the Government have claimed would keep down costs in Scotland is largely meaningless, that the proposals pose real dangers to Scottish consumers and, particularly, that Scottish consumers, including industrial consumers, may very well finish up by subsidising the export of Scottish electricity to England. Why does the Secretary of State not drop the proposals?

Mr. Rifkind: I have not yet had an opportunity to read the Select Committee's conclusions, but I understand that they question the value of continuing with vertical integration in Scotland whereby generation, production and distribution are in the same company's control. As the right hon. Gentleman shares the Government's view that vertical integration has been to the benefit of the Scottish economy, and as that will continue, I am surprised that he did not refer to that.

Mr. Steel: Does the Secretary of State accept that the adverse effect of the high value of the pound and of high interest rates is bound to be considerable on manufacturing in Scotland in general and on the woollen trade in the Borders in particular? Does he not receive a warning from this morning's trade figures, which show that we are on target, not for the Chancellor's £4 billion deficit at the end of the year, but, possibly, for a £10 billion deficit? Does the Secretary of State accept, therefore, that the Government's economic policy appears to be constructed on a pack of credit cards?

Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, if we returned to the levels of inflation that existed when he was in a pact with the Labour Government, the prospects for Scottish industry would be disastrous. Scottish industry and manufacturers are going through a period of unprecedented growth, which they recognise as being favourable to their interests and those of their employees. The alternative economic prescriptions that the right hon. Gentleman supported during the period of the last Labour Government would create a gloomy future for the textile industry in his constituency, as well as for Scottish industry as a whole.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the recent marked and welcome improvement in the performance of Scottish manufacturing industry comes through a growing awareness among the Scots people that the way to success and to compete against the rest of the United Kingdom is not through the Socialist dependency preached by all three Opposition parties, but through hard work, free enterprise and individual promotion—in other words, Thatcherism?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes.

Mr. Dewar: May I help the Secretary of State by telling him that the Select Committee on Energy did not make the comment that he has reported to the House. Instead, it made the interesting point that vertical integration has been favoured in Scotland and not in England, and that no arguments, except that of historical convenience, have been adduced by the Government to justify that difference of approach. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that he cannot shrug off a Committee with a solid Tory majority, which has condemned in the most stringent terms as ill-thought-out and ill-considered the Government's plans to privatise the electricity industry? It makes the telling point that no real effort has been made by the Government to establish or argue that there will be any advantage for the consumer. It condemns in the most forthright way the atmosphere of hostility that has, for example, conditioned the Government's approach to the coal industry. Is it not clear that the Secretary of State will have to rethink his position following the devastating job that has been done by the Select Committee?

Mr. Rifkind: I recall that before every previous privatisation there have been those who have made exactly the same predictions, which have been found to be entirely incorrect when the results have been announced. Since the Government have announced their proposals for privatisation in Scotland—those for the electricity industry and the Scottish Bus Group, for example—we have found a tremendous increase in interest among the employees of the industries. Their main interest lies in the opportunity for them and their fellow workers to enhance their participation in the industries that are important to them.

Type 23 Frigate Order

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on the Scottish economy of the recent order for three type 23 frigates from Yarrow Shipbuilders.

Mr. Lang: The order, together with existing work on frigates in the yard, will safeguard over 4,000 jobs at Yarrows well into the 1990s, with proportionate spin-off to the local and national economy. The Ministry of Defence estimates that the equivalent of 10,000 jobs, including those at Yarrows, will be sustained in the defence industry throughout the United Kingdom over the next four to five years.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the news that the jobs have been safeguarded is yet another sympton of the buoyancy of the Glasgow economy, which has led to the Glasgow commercial property market being one of the most vibrant in the United Kingdom? Does he further

agree that the order makes it highly likely that Yarrow will be at the forefront of those tendering for the fourth frigate in 1989?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to welcome the order and the success that it brings to the Clyde. It was won in fair and open competition. It is a tribute to the work force and its skills and to the forward-looking investment programme of the management at Yarrow.

Mr. Ingram: Is the Minister aware of the excellent design assistance that has been given to Yarrow by the national engineering laboratory at East Kilbride? Will he share in the outrage that has been expressed throughout Scotland at the proposed sell-off of the NEL, and the secretive way in which it has been introduced?

Mr. Lang: I welcome the interest that has been shown in the national engineering laboratory by the number of applications that have been submitted. I believe that that will achieve a secure future for the laboratory.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Has the Minister spoken at any stage to his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that further defence jobs of this nature come to Scotland? The defence procurement budget acts as a massive subsidy to the south-east and south-west of England. Would it not be more appropriate if more of the budget were spent in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady is talking bigoted nonsense. Yarrow has seven Royal Navy ships on order or under construction. I wonder how many ships there would be in the Royal Navy of an independent Scotland.

Regional Development Grant

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to speed up the process of settling applications and claims for payment of regional grants.

Mr. Lang: A large intake of applications and claims were received in the period just before the scheme was closed to new applications. Additional staff have, therefore, been deployed in the regional development grants office in Glasgow. The number of cases dealt with is running at record levels, but some delay to applicants is unfortunately inevitable.

Mr. McKelvey: The Minister will recall that I wrote on behalf of Forbes and Whiteford Ltd. in my constituency —a small but successful firm—which has been held up for several months. Its application has been forwarded and it is waiting on the cheque. I appreciate that extra staff have been employed in the office to issue the cheques, but does the Minister share my anxiety that if small firms do not receive the money that they need up front for their small expansions there will be job losses? The number might be small, but they will be vital jobs that we require in areas such as Kilmarnock. Will further staff be deployed so that we can reduce the waiting time to weeks rather than months?

Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, and I appreciate the difficulties confronting small firms. More than one year's applications were received by the Department within about three months. The case to which the hon. Gentleman refers is being considered at this time.

Mr. Oppenheim: Would not more of the same reach the right parts faster if it were not for the regional policies of the TGWU, which seems to put the interests of its members in the prosperous south ahead of those of the unemployed in Dundee, but whose sponsorship money Opposition Members still seem keen to take?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is also a cause of considerable regret that while the TUC supports the introduction of the employment training scheme, the STUC is resisting the scheme, which is designed to help the long-term unemployed in Scotland.

Mr. McLeish: Does the Minister not accept that the RDG fiasco is another example of the mismanagement of the Scottish economy? Will he tell the House how many applications are still outstanding and when the backlog is likely to be cleared?

Mr. Lang: A considerable number of grants are outstanding. It is impossible to give the hon. Gentleman an exact figure, because of the movement that is taking place. I can tell him that over the past four months 2,000 cases have been cleared and that the clearance rate will accelerate further at the end of the holiday season.

Scottish Bus Group and CalMac

Mr. Lambie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has held concerning the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group and the future of CalMac; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has met the chairman and deputy chairman and the board of the Scottish Transport Group. I have met the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the joint Scottish shipping services advisory committees. My right hon. and learned Friend is presently considering the future arrangements for CalMac and the pattern of privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.

Mr. Lambie: In view of the Secretary of State's reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) concerning the need for employee participation, will the Secretary of State provide general preferential arrangements for employee bids for the Scottish Bus Group?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. We regard it as particularly important that management and employees are given the opportunity to acquire a stake in their own business, and consideration will be given to how best to encourage that. We are aware that a considerable measure of interest is already being shown by employees, as well as by management, in possible management/employee buy-outs. I hope that privatisation in this case will see a significant increase in employee participation.

Mr Allan Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Scottish Transport Group and many of the people involved in the industry sincerely believe that privatisation should be on the basis of the existing companies and not on a structure which, perhaps, has purely theoretical merit? Will he assure the House that he will take those representations seriously? Does he agree that bus privatisation will present a major opportunity for Scots and Scottish institutions to take a stake in an important indigenous industry?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Certainly. The Secretary of State's decision was based on the advice of the Scottish merchant bank advisers, Quayle Munro, and has the prime purpose of increasing competition in the Scottish bus market to the benefit of the consumer and to boost enterprise and, in particular, employee participation.

National Farmers Union

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to discuss the current state of agriculture in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend last met the president at the Royal Highland show.

Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State is aware of the disappointment in Scottish agriculture at the relatively small devaluation of the green pound—not least in the beef sector, where a date for it to take effect has not even been announced. Additionally, there are ever-increasing financial burdens as a result of higher interest rates. On the next occasion that the Secretary of State meets the president of the Scottish NFU, does he propose bridging what the president recently described as a yawning credibility gap between the Government's protestations that British farmers must not be disadvantaged and their inability to deliver?

Mr. Forsyth: The position on the green pound is that we achieved a settlement that was very good compared with other countries; only two other countries within the Community did better. As to agriculture's financial position, the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the latest bank figures show a fall in the burden of debt carried by farmers in Scotland. In the year to May 1988 it was down 3·5 per cent. in current money terms and down 7 per cent. in real terms. The figures show increasingly careful financial management among other farmers, which is welcome.

Mr. Eadie: When the Minister met the president of the National Farmers Union, did he have an opportunity to discuss the massive cutbacks in research and development in agriculture? I believe that the total figure is about £75 million. Can the Minister tell the House how many jobs in Scotland will be involved in the cutback, and will he put in the Official Report all the institutions in Scotland that will suffer a cutback in employment?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman seeks to present a transfer of responsibility for funding from the state to industry as a cutback, for reasons best known to himself. The overall position on future levels of public spending on agricultural research and development is, as he knows, still under consideration, and no final decisions have been made.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware of the particular difficulties facing the pig industry in Scotland, particularly in areas such as Grampian, where it is an important part of the agricultural economy? Is he further aware that the problem is caused largely by the increase in overseas protein prices? This follows a very


difficult period in relation to monetary compensation amounts. There is deep concern in the pigmeat sector in Scotland, as indeed there is throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Forsyth: As my right hon. Friend will know, one of the causes of concern in the pigmeat sector involved the

removal of MCAs. He will also know that the recent settlement met our major objectives. It improves the competitive position of United Kingdom pig farmers relative to nine of the 12 member states, and virtually eliminates the pigmeat MCA gap.

Revenue Support Grant (Scotland)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make an announcement about local authority expenditure and revenue support grant in Scotland for 1989–90.
I propose that the provision for local authority current expenditure in 1989–90 should be £3,930 million. This level of provision is 8 per cent. more than provision for the current year, and £240 million over provision for 1989–90 as set out in the public expenditure White Paper. The figure is also 4·6 per cent. above authorities' adjusted budgets for 1988–89. It includes full provision for the extra administrative costs of operating the community charge, as estimated by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
I propose that aggregate Exchequer grant should be set at £2,500 million. This is £129·5 million or 5·5 per cent. more than the settlement allowed for this year, and local authorities in Scotland and local taxpayers should accordingly find it a very satisfactory settlement. In reaching it I have taken into account the views that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities expressed to my hon. Friend when it met him on 8 July. The settlement is based on authorities' own budgets for the present year. Grant has been increased by more than the rate of inflation. If authorities do not increase their real level of spending next year, community charges should therefore be set at levels no higher than those that we have illustrated for this year.
I hope that authorities will respond very positively to the settlement in preparing their budgets for next year.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I thought that there was a distinctly smug air about the Secretary of State as he made his announcement. Perhaps he has been influenced by the version of what he said that appeared in this morning's Scottish press, presumably busily leaked by his own information department.
Those reports have inevitably given a misleading gloss on the facts. As I understand it—perhaps the Secretary of State will confirm this—he has taken the 1988–89 budget and added 4·6 per cent. to cover inflation. Does he accept that pay settlements in the local authority pay sector have been running above that, and that when that is combined with the additional burdens to be met—such as poll tax administration, the establishment of school boards, the AIDS campaign and a number of other matters—the increase is wholly inadequate? Would it not be fair to say that an increase of 6 per cent. is necessary to guarantee the present level of services and the increased demands to which I have referred?
The statement refers to an increase in grant. Is it not a fact that there is a fall in the grant percentage from 55·4 per cent. in the current year of the Government's assessment of local government expenditure before penalty to under 55 per cent. in 1989–90? Is it not correct that if the grant percentage figure for the year that we are discussing had been maintained at the same level as last year, £30 million of additional grant would be available to local authorities?
Is not the Secretary of State being hopelessly complacent about the implications of the settlement for the poll tax? Will it not lead either to a further reduction in services or probably to an increase of about £30 per

head for the average individual poll tax payer? Does he not accept that it now looks, unless there is a very big reduction in the services offered to often needy groups, as though the average individual poll tax in Scotland will be around the £300 mark, not the £250 mark that Ministers have been talking about?
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is no reason to welcome the new revenue support grant? Judging by today's announcement, it represents another chapter in an all too familiar and dreary story. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate the damage that has been done by persistent and sustained cuts in the settlement, which have led to the grant percentage falling in the last eight years from 68·5 per cent. to the present miserable level, representing a cumulative loss of £3,000 million to the people of Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: In the last two or three years, as the Government have announced generous rate support grant settlements, the hon. Gentleman's attempts to identify bad news from good news have become increasingly unconvincing. The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that the provision is up by 4·6 per cent., but I think he will appreciate that what is more important to local authorities than provision, which is indicative of what the Government feel that local authorities ought to spend, is the level of grant. That is up by 5·5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman asked about community charge administration. COSLA's estimate of the costs of administering the community charge is £25 million. In the current year and next year that amount is to be fully accommodated within the settlement that I have made.
The grant percentage includes factors such as loan charges and capital from current revenue. I do not have the precise figures immediately available to me, but that is the cash that local authorities have received. Apart from grant going up by more than the rate of inflation, the fact is that, because grant penalties will no longer apply, every pound of grant that goes to the local authorities will remain with them. We shall not see, as has been the case under successive Governments, a proportion of the grant being returned to the Governments because of excessive spending. The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that fact.
I cannot for one moment understand the basis of the hon. Gentleman's predictions about community charge levels. I appreciate that the Labour party has its own reasons for making as much as possible out of the issue by scaremongering. However, as a result of the generous grant settlement that I described in my statement, unless local authorities choose to increase their real spending, community charges should be set at levels that are no higher than those that we have illustrated for this year.

Sir Hector Monro: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his statement. Does he accept that the additional money that is being made available to local authorities will stop them criticising the so-called cuts? Does he agree that local authorities will be able to increase their expenditure while maintaining the level of community charge at no more that 5 per cent. above current rates?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is substantially correct. The level of the community charge will vary from locality to locality, depending on the present level of spending. Only if a local authority chooses to increase its real level of


spending will it be necessary to impose an additional burden on the community charge payer. The point of reforming the local government finance system is to introduce accountability between a local authority and the community in its area. If the community wishes additional services to be provided, it will have to contribute more towards their cost. That is the basis of responsible and democratic local government.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Even for local authorities to maintain their existing level of services, assuming that the police and fire authority pay increases have to be taken from it, will the Secretary of State confirm that any pay awards above 46 per cent. in the year 1988–89 will require to be found either through additions to the poll tax or by decreasing services?

Mr. Rifkind: I hope that local authorities will take that into account. One of the problems in the past few months has been that local authorities in Scotland agreed on an increase in teachers' salaries which was considerably higher than the Government recommended and more than was agreed for teachers in other parts of the United Kingdom. If local authorities, at their own discretion, choose to increase teachers' salaries by more than the Government are recommending and more than is being applied elsewhere, that will be an additional burden on those local communities, and that must be brought home to them.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his generous settlement. Can he confirm that it is more generous than those for England and Wales?

Mr. Rifkind: I said that the increase in grant will be £129·5 million, which represents a 5·5 per cent. increase in grant compared with last year. The increase in grant for England was 4·6 per cent. and for Wales 51· per cent.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State reflect on what he has been saying? Will he come clean and admit that the proportion of revenue expenditure incurred by local authorities subvented by central Government has diminished considerably during his period of office? Does he accept that he is talking about an uptake of 100 per cent., but no one really expects a 100 per cent. payment of community charge, especially if we relate it to people like me who will not pay? The proportion is likely to be between 80 and 90 per cent. Therefore, the level of community charge in Scotland will be close to what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said—in excess of £300. Will he confirm that?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman pays rates at the moment. If he refuses to pay the community charge, he is saying that he wishes to do well out of the change. He is refusing to make his contribution to the cost of local government and is expecting other people to bear the burden of that. If the hon. Gentleman describes that as a position of principle, he has some very odd principles.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in their reaction to his statement today Opposition Members have brought their traditional whingeing and whining to a fine art? Is not an increase in

provision of 8 per cent. and an increase in grant of 5·5 per cent. generosity almost to the point of excess? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will confirm that the Government are still in favour of controlling public expenditure. However, does he agree that the increases will knock on the head the wholly irresponsible so-called forecasts about the community charge to which the Scottish electors were treated before the district elections?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very generous settlement. If he feels that it is too generous, and if he would like Eastwood district council to be excluded from its benefits, I shall be happy to consider that.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is it not the case that this so-called generous settlement should be put in the context of the withdrawal of £2,000 million from local government by the Government since they came to office? While we are grateful for small financial mercies, is this not an admission that COSLA and the local authorities got their sums right in regard to expenses for implementing the poll tax and the Government got it wrong? When will the Government start listening to the men and women who run local authorities rather than imposing centralist solutions?

Mr. Rifkind: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would make up his mind. He started by saying that the Government were acknowledging that COSLA had got it right, yet he concluded by asking when the Government would start to listen to COSLA. The hon. Gentleman cannot make both points simultaneously, otherwise he will end up even more confused than usual; but perhaps in the case of his political party that is a perfectly legitimate position for him to adopt.

Mr. Tony Marlow: It seems that the Government are offering more individually to the constituents of Scotland than they are to my constituents and that money is being transferred from my people to the people of Scotland. Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how he feels that this will reduce the invidious and malignant influence of Socialism on Scotland and, if not, what does he suggest?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales have announced generous rate support grant settlements, as have I. It is not unusual for there to be slight differences between the three territories, and I do not think that any dramatic conclusions should be drawn from any differences. The real message is that the Government are playing their full part responsibly to meet the needs of local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Ron Brown: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman employing double standards when he attacks the public and hon. Members for saying that they will not pay the poll tax, or the so-called community charge? Is that not hypocrisy, bearing in mind the fact that the Government justify legalised corruption in the form of tax avoidance, which goes on among the rich? Is it not time that the working class fought back by not paying this Tory tax, which does not have any backing in Scotland or, I believe, in England?

Mr. Rifkind: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues in the Labour party and the


Scottish National party who wish to campaign for a policy of ignoring laws of which they do not approve will find that they are going against the grain of Scottish opinion and will be treated with contempt by the Scottish people. No hon. Member campaigned during the last general election on a manifesto commitment to break the law. The hon. Gentleman did not tell his electorate that that is what he intended to do and I think that he would have got a pretty raw answer if he did.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, as a result of this settlement, a far higher percentage of local authority expenditure in Scotland will be grant aided than is the case in England? Does he agree that the lesson of the settlement is that those who make irresponsible wage settlements should not expect to be bailed out by the taxpayer? Does he agree that it is high time that Scottish local authorities sought greater value for money through competitive tendering?

Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my hon. Friend about competitive tendering. He is right to say that the various countries of the United Kingdom receive different amounts of grant from the Government. It is not some arbitrary matter. It reflects the different needs of those countries and the revenue which can be expected from the local community if a comparable burden is put on the system of taxation. At one extreme is the Western Isles, where a high proportion of expenditure is met by grant. In other parts of Scotland, where economic circumstances are different, much less expenditure is met by grant. That principle applies throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas)? When determining revenue support grant, what estimate has been made of the number of people who cannot or will not pay poll tax, bearing in mind the fact that an increasing number of people seem to be coming to the conclusion—the justifiable conclusion—that the only way in which to stop the poll tax is for enough people to say, "We refuse to pay"?

Mr. Rifkind: I notice that those who hold that view have decided to campaign on the interesting slogan, "Can pay but won't." It appears that the campaign is based not on hardship or allegations of inability to pay but on purely political prejudice. This and, I suspect, any other responsible Government do not make estimates based on the likelihood of the hon. Gentleman and his friends refusing to obey the law.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Would these professions of poverty not be more credible if more Scottish councils showed themselves more willing to save money by contracting services out and going to competitive tender?

Mr. Rifkind: Local authorities throughout the United Kingdom are increasingly being required to do that. The process consistently shows substantial benefits for the local community, and it enables local authorities to provide better services for the community at reduced cost. That is something which all right-minded people support. Competitive tendering makes sense for local authorities and the Health Service. Everybody does it with their own

personal finances, and there is no reason why representatives of the community should not apply similar criteria.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Is the Secretary of State aware that at the last general election I campaigned against the poll tax, made no secret of the fact that I would not pay that iniquitous and immoral tax and doubled my majority?

Mr. Rifkind: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will want to continue to pay his rates or will insist on contributing a sum equivalent to his rates to some worthy cause. Hon. Members who claim to be acting on the basis of principle but who end up in the circumstances suggested by the hon. Gentleman are unlikely to gain any significant respect.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that English Members will be astonished by the relatively high proportion of local government spending in Scotland that is paid for by the taxpayer because that proportion is much higher than in our constituencies? Would my right hon. and learned Friend be equally as astonished at the inkling of the dinosaur mentality of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who intimated that the inevitable consequence of a reduction in grant percentages —I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has not announced that today—is that the community charge would be higher or that local government services would be reduced? It has not occurred to the hon. Member for Garscadden that local authorities might be able to become more efficient. Is that the opinion of the hon. Member for Garscadden because the Labour party's paymasters in Scotland are, by and large, the local authority unions which want to keep their noses in the trough and their hands in the taxpayers' pockets?

Mr. Rifkind: Undoubtedly there is a combination of motives which sometimes leads to the effect to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I did not promise in my election address to shoot the Prime Minister, but I am constantly urged to do that by my constituents. When does the Secretary of State intend to announce the share out of the grant settlement? We would be interested to know whether that will be carried out fairly according to need or whether the Government will exercise the political prejudice which they have exercised so often in the past.

Mr. Rifkind: The political prejudice to which the hon. Lady has referred has meant, with regard to distribution, acting in the closest consultation with COSLA and in the vast majority of cases accepting COSLA's proposals for distribution. If that is political prejudice, it is a rather interesting kind of prejudice which is apparently shared by the hon. Lady's friends among local authorities.

Mr. Alistair Darling: What account did the Secretary of State take of rising interest rates which have a major impact on local authority expenditure? Does he not accept that, if interest rates continue to rise as they have, they will push the poll tax well above the Secretary of State's bogus figures unless local authorities begin to cut services, or is that really what the Secretary of State would like to see happen?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the increase in grant that I have announced today is above the rate of inflation. He is also aware that interest rates, when they relate to the loan charges of local authorities, very often lead to adjustments in the support for local authorities. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the worst example that he could possibly have thought of in referring to changes in interest rates affecting local authorities. Traditionally those have been accommodated by central Government.

Mr. John McAllion: The level of rate support grant percentage is fairly important because if it has been reduced it represents a further shift of the burden of taxation from central Government to the backs of poll tax payers. Will the Secretary of State stop ducking the question and confirm or deny whether the level of RSG percentage this year represents a reduction or an increase over last year's?

Mr. Rifkind: As I have already said to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), that kind of calculation does not just——

Mr. McAllion: That means yes.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman would allow me to answer his question as I allowed him to ask it——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it was I who allowed the hon. Gentleman to ask the question.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept your rebuke, Mr. Speaker.
The level of grant is the crucial requirement for local authorities. That is increased by more than the rate of inflation. The percentage relates to the percentage of the figure for provision. That is an indicative figure. It also takes into account loan charges and capital from current revenue. As I said to the hon. Member for Garscadden, I

do not have the figures available for loan charges or capital for current revenue. However, the important point for local authorities is the actual cash that they receive. If that cash is more than the rate of inflation, it is undoubtedly one of the more generous settlements that they have received in recent years.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The settlement is supposed to take Scottish local authorities through the first full chaotic year of the Government's new poll tax. Has the Secretary of State taken account of the built-in inefficiency of the tax and the fact that the majority of Scottish people do not want it to work? What advice is he giving local authorities about the level of shortfall in collection for which they should budget? Should it be 10, 15 or 20 per cent.? How can they manage their budgets in the coming year, given the uncertainty that the Government have created?
Will the Secretary of State respond to the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? Is not the grant settlement a lower percentage of the Government's estimates of local authority expenditure than that for the current year?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman asks the Government to make estimates based on people allegedly not paying the community charge or having a lack of enthusiasm for it. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman referred to inefficiency and said that people do not wish to pay the community charge. Despite the Labour party's campaign to frustrate the registration process—that was one of the examples used during the passage of the Bill to show the inefficiency of the system and how it would not operate effectively—here we are, two months before the target date for the completion of registration, and it is over 90 per cent. complete in the majority of areas. As a consequence, it can be seen without fear of qualification that the Labour party's campaign has been a complete shambles.

Personal Statement

Sir Anthony Meyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement.
There have recently been reports in the press and on television based on a letter written by me to the Chairman of Ways and Means in which I made comments about the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) in his capacity as Chairman of the Welsh Grand Committee. That letter was not made public by me, but the views expressed in it have passed into the public domain.
I recognise that it is not appropriate for me, as a fellow member of the Chairmen's Panel, to be associated with the comments that have become public, and I also recognise that what I said in connection with the incident which provoked my letter was based on a misunderstanding. In these circumstances, I wish to withdraw any reflection upon the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Neath, and to apologise to him unreservedly for the embarassment caused to him by this incident.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Bowden: As you, Mr. Speaker, are aware, an ever-increasing number of questions are being tabled for oral answer. The Department of Health and Social Security is being split into separate Departments. As has so often happened in the past, with the luck of the draw, during social security Question Time one side of the Department has not had a fair share of the time to give answers. Will you, Mr. Speaker, inform the House whether any action will be taken to ensure that questions for the Department of Health and those for the Department of Social Services are split?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter and for giving me notice of it. I appreciate that these are important matters for those who have an interest in oral questions on health or social security. They fall to be dealt with not by me but by the Government after consultation through the usual channels. Like the hon. Gentleman, I venture to hope that an early solution can be found so that the tabling of oral questions can go ahead in a satisfactory manner on Friday this week.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to question No. 6, the Minister of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), mentioned my wife viz her intentions about the poll tax. Given that my wife, fortunately or otherwise, is not an hon. Member, I found that reference to be in appalling bad taste. I do not expect an apology from the hon. Gentleman because I do not expect decent behaviour from a representative of the sleekit, baggy-trousered outfit that runs the Scottish Office.

Mr. Speaker: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not participate in Scottish Question Time.

Fuel and Energy Provision

Mr. John Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home, to guarantee appliances, to prevent the entry to premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice, to prevent the unauthorised removal of a fuel measuring device, to abolish standing charges; and for connected purposes.
The purpose of the Bill is to eradicate the danger that people on low incomes experience when they are denied a requisite of life. The problems of the poor, the hardships that affect them and their impossible financial circumstances are best conveyed by a letter from one of my constituents. He wishes me to inform the House that he is living in the first home that he can call his own. He says:
I have lived here two years and I am just starting life as living the meaning of life. I will explain as I go along.
Suddenly I find myself without a job and, not surprisingly, I am in a situation where I am sensitised to the very feeling of financial impoverishment.
And the inhumanity of Gas and Electric companies sending insulting and threatening notices to cut off such people as me without money to meet such demands because of state improverishment.
The very fact that British Gas or the Electricity Board can have permission to make a forced entry into a destitute family's home vexes me.
Whilst companies may have the right to be paid, it is abominably offensive to do the things they do.
Who is the real offender and culprit behind non-payment?
Is it not the state and the heads of state who legislate how much support and unemployment benefit which a family should receive?
And other legislation which affects people in hopeless situations.
I have answered the door this morning to an Electricity Board official, who wanted to cut off the supply.
So I refused him entry, which is the only thing that anyone could do.
As my unemployment benefit is £47 per week, from that I have a direct deduction of£8 per week for gas arrears before unemployment.
That leaves me £39 to pay a £40 per week mortgage; to pay for electricity, the rates, to eat and to pay for everything necessary to run a home.
I only eat what is cheap.
Yet I am unable to respond to the normal domestic situation.
If a light bulb blows, I cannot replace it.
I pay no electricity; I pay no rates or the inevitable things like house insurance.
You must know about it, unlike some, especially those of the Thatcher breed, who know little of what I experience.
So what happens when I appear in court for non-payment?
And I answer the man with the questions over the dock, whom the state appointed to judge me?
Time denies me the opportunity to read all my constituent's letter, which defines the circumstances of the fuel poor, for which the Government have shown little concern. This is confirmed by the almost total absence of any discussion about the standard of housing and energy efficiency issues. His letter most accurately describes the appalling circumstances of the millions who were given no consideration when £2 billion was given away in tax handouts—tax handouts funded by social security changes and implemented by a majority of Members. They have led to 3,238,000 householders, who were also required to absorb increased fuel prices, being £3·43 worse off. They mean that 3,238,000 householders were unable to achieve

an affordable warmth last winter, and will have less money for fuel this winter, and their fuel poverty will be intensified.
That fuel poverty will be further compounded by a British Gas with the sole objective of getting the highest return on capital and bonanza dividends for shareholders, a British Gas that no longer has a social role towards the poor, the low-income groups, the elderly, and the disabled, whose dependancy has beem described as a deadly drug. That mercenary attitude has already been emulated by the Central Electricity Generating Board, even before it has been stolen from the public.
The Government's security changes and the privatisation of fuel supplies have created an alien environment, an environment that can kill, when, without compunction, gas is disconnected as British Gas intensifies its policy of making life hard for the low-income customer, whom it considers troublesome, as they use little gas and generate high administration costs
In our so-called civilised society, there is a hostile and dangerous environment where the elderly and low-income families with young children are at risk of fires or explosions, as they continue to use dangerous cooking and heating appliances. They are frightened to have them checked, and are unable to replace them if they are condemned as unsafe. Day by day, they are forced to live with that worry and fear. It threatens their health and well-being, and it exists because what can be described only as a usurer Government have abolished a special payments system and replaced it with a cash-limited loans fund.
As we near the end of this Session of Parliament, the subject that dominates the conversation is the holiday plans of Members and their families—plans that may have been in the pipeline a year or perhaps months, and that contrast starkly with the unmade plans of millions in our impoverished society. They cannot plan a year ahead, a week ahead or even a day ahead, and they fear what lies five months ahead to winter. They are unemployed; elderly; retired; they are sick; disabled or are families with young children. Their circumstances force them to spend 13 hours a day in their homes. They will spend 20 per cent. of their income on fuel. They will exist in temperatures that would not be acceptable to a shop worker, a factory worker or an office worker and would most certainly be unacceptable to the majority of hon. Members.
Those millions fear what is five months ahead, when winter is with us, because we force them to live in circumstances that contrast so extremely with ours, here in this cosseted, centrally-heated seat of Government. This coming winter, they will exist in a Government-created hell, without heat, which will result in 30,000 deaths. They will die of cold—and it will not be on the ski slopes, and they will not be buried under a snow avalanche. They will die simply because their Government stole their heat.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hughes, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Win Griffiths, Mr. Pat Wall, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Bob Cryer, Ms. Mildred Gordon, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Tony Banks.

FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION

Mr. John Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to require the provision of essential fuel and energy to each home, to guarantee appliances, to prevent the entry to


premises without prior recorded legally authorised notice, to prevent the unauthorised removal of a fuel measuring device, to abolish standing charges; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 July and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

Mr. Speaker: I remind right hon. and hon. Members on both Front and Back Benches that debates on the motions today may last for one and a half hours each.

Immigration

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move,
That the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (HC 555), which was laid before this House on 7th July 1988, be disapproved.
This is a tawdry little measure, made all the more squalid by the circumstances of its introduction. Its effects on the life of the nation as a whole will be imperceptible, but the suffering and hardship that it will cause to a small number of families living in Britain will be immense. Its immediate origins go back over a year to the general election and a promise given by the Home Secretary to a Tory candidate in a marginal seat—a promise to be tougher on immigration and to impose tougher immigration restrictions.
We oppose the changes because of the hardship and suffering that they will cause and because they are part of the Government's political strategy on race and immigration. The Government believe that they gain electoral advantage by first depicting the ethnic minorities as a danger, and immigration as a threat, and then by claiming to be the only party that will face the danger and overcome that threat with suitably harsh policies.
This morning the Minister of State went on radio to refute the charge that the Government are intentionally increasing and exploiting fear about immigration. He did so first by announcing that, on the sub-continent of India, there are 1,000 million potential immigrants to this country. He used that figure twice. He then went on to refer to the risk of Britain being "flooded" by immigrants. Finally, he went on to warn about the perils of "mass immigration". To some of us the opinions of the National Front are not made any less odious by being expressed in the style of Bertie Wooster. It is instructive to measure the Minister's scaremongering against the proposals that we are debating.
Paragraph 3 of the "Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules" prohibits the entry of second wives. That measure is geared specifically to the custom of a small group of Moslem men who are presently in this country lawfully. Each year, that provision will prevent 25 women from entering this country—25 women out of the 1,000 million potential immigrants with which the Minister of State tried to make our flesh creep this morning.
That provision will stem the "flood" at the rate of one immigrant a fortnight; it will reduce mass immigration by two a month. It is not, however, the provisions of paragraph 3, for all its pettiness, that are the most objectionable part of the statement. The Government will ask the House—I have no doubt that the most supine Back Benchers ever to support a Government will readily agree —to break a solemn promise given by a Conservative Home Secretary in 1971. In that year Mr. Maudling was explicit:
I do not intend that the position of those already in this country, the rights of those already in this country to bring in their dependants, shall be changed. That is what we promised in the election."—[Official Report, 8 March 1971; Vol. 813, c. 47.]
That right is now to be abolished and that promise is to be abandoned. The excuse for that action is that the promise was made to men only and that it referred to the right of men living in this country before 1973 to bring in,


without restriction, their wives and families. The excuse is that that promise was not made to women. As always with Tory immigration policy, when they claim that they are about to achieve equality, they achieve a sort of equality by increasing the problems for one group rather than reducing the difficulties of another. Men settled in this country before 1973 are now to be subject to the primary purpose rule. It is about that rule that I shall principally speak during the few minutes that I shall allow myself.
I believe that the fact of marriage should, in itself, be the sole qualification for entry into this country and that residence and settlement should be automatically allowed as long as the marriage proves to be a stable relationship. However, the primary purpose rule, as presently defined, is more objectionable than the refusal of that simple principle alone. It is deeply and additionally objectionable for three distinct reasons. First, it requires a husband or a wife to prove to an immigration officer's satisfaction that there is no other reason for the marriage than the marriage itself. That task of proving a negative and proving the reasons why they did not enter into the marriage—proving it to the subjective satisfaction of a junior official—is, in many circumstances, immensely difficult. For young men and young women, nervous in the face of bureaucracy, inexperienced in how to deal with officials and sometimes struggling with language difficulties, that task is often impossible. I have no doubt that the Home Office intends that it should be. I shall demonstrate that the primary purpose rule is not supposed to be a check on improper, arranged and inoperative—in the best sense of the word —marriages. It is meant to be a barrier to entry to this country in all circumstances.

Ms. Clare Short: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way a couple of times, but preferably not too often because of the short length of this debate.

Ms. Short: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend remembers a press article that appeared some months ago. It stated that the Minister's officials had said that the rule is penalising genuine marriages and is allowing through only those who understand the complicated rule of giving the right answers. Those officials said that couples with genuine marriages had been prevented entry to the United Kingdom, and that the officials were recommending a change in the rules.

Mr. Hattersley: There are many problems with this subject and were there time I should like to consider them, but one of them is the nature of the questions that are sometimes asked. By any reasonable analysis, those questions are trick questions and they encourage people to give the wrong answers. I shall deal with the attitude of Ministry officials explicitly in a moment—their attitude is my third objection to the primary purpose rule.
My second objection, however, is the way in which that rule is presently applied. The Court of Appeal, in the judgment in Kumar, requires the Home Office and its officials to take into account the nature of the marriage after it was contracted when applying the primary purpose

rule—not just how that marriage came about, but how it turned out when the partners lived together in happiness and in a proper relationship.
The evidence of appeals to the Home Office adjudicators demonstrates, beyond doubt, that the Home Office is not following that judgment and instruction from the court. Too often the primary purpose rule is taken simply to mean the circumstances in which the marriage was contracted. As a result couples with genuine marriages, real partnerships, are kept apart for one year, two years or three years until the long, protracted period of appeal is concluded.

Mr. Tony Marlow: That is not how it works.

Mr. Hattersley: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman who represents all of the opinion that I most detest on this subject. The hon. Gentleman prefers to mumble his opinions rather than to speak in the debate. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order let us have an orderly debate.

Mr. Marlow: I shall answer the right hon. Gentleman's challenge. My hon. Friends and I represent the opinions of the ordinary people of our country, which he most certainly does not.

Mr. Hattersley: I agree that people do not come more ordinary than the hon. Gentleman, but there is more to it than that. The third objection to the primary purpose rule is a crucial matter of principle.

Mr. Tim Janman: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I made it clear that I would give way twice. We have 86 minutes left to debate this matter and, in courtesy to the House, I do not propose to give way again.
My third objection to the primary purpose rule is the most important because it relates to an issue of principle. The primary purpose rule is now being used not to decide whether a marriage is genuine, but to hold down the numbers of immigrants coming to this country.
Six weeks ago, together with representatives of the Immigrant Widows Campaign, I discussed the primary purpose rule with the Home Secretary. The supervising under-secretary—a civil servant—was terrifyingly frank about the intention of the primary purpose rule. He said that it was intended to slow down the rate of entry. When I challenged that view and insisted that the only possible justification for such a rule was an attempt to detect and deter bogus marriages, the Home Secretary supported his official. I noted his words at that time, which were:
The people out there would not understand if a lot more husbands came in.
The truth is that the people out there are assumed by the Government to be as racially prejudiced as the average Conservative Back Bencher. Perhaps some of them are, but the rest—the decent majority—are now being encouraged to develop prejudices by the constant representation of the black and Asian British as a problem and a threat. That is why the measure removes the right of some men and women who have stayed longer than their visas allow to appeal against deportation even on compassionate grounds. The measure removes the right of British citizens——

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I think the right hon. Gentleman is about to leave the subject of primary purpose and I want to ask him a question about it before he moves on. He will remember that in the Second Reading debate on the Immigration Bill in November he specifically said that he thought the primary purpose rule should be replaced by a quota. Eight months have passed. Has he developed his thoughts on that matter? What would be an appropriate quota?

Mr. Hattersley: I have made my position clear today. It is, and will remain, that the fact of marriage should be the qualification for entering this country, as it is in others. Quotas do not arise. There should be a right. The Minister must understand that, in a free society, it is not a right if it exists only in law and we do not allow people to exercise it in practice. A man married to a British citizen should be allowed into this country. If the Minister wants to talk about quotas, what quotas does he propose for husbands entering this country from the EEC? There are no quotas for them. The Minister thinks of quotas only in the context of black or brown—or West Indian or Indian sub-continent—quotas. He knows perfectly well—he has encouraged me to develop this subject—that the way in which the primary purpose rule now operates is such that the French citizen living in Great Britain has the right to bring a husband or wife into this country, yet that right is not available to British citizens living here.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: The situation I have described is absurd. The quota, the primary purpose rule, or the limitation is supposed to operate only against the husbands and wives of black and Asian British citizens —and no on else.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Hattersley: I keep saying no. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman again, if he wants me to.
The desire to represent the black and Asian British as a problem and a threat is the reason why the measure removes the right of British citizens to present themselves at Heathrow or Dover and request entry into their own country unless they provide immediately, and have on them at the time, proof positive of their nationality.
No one can honestly doubt how this will work. When a man arrives at Heathrow and claims to be a British citizen and is turned away, he will not be a white South African patrial; he will be a Moslem youth, born in Birmingham and taken as a child to Pakistan. The same will happen to a girl from Jamaica who was born here but went home to live for a period with her parents in Kingston. This is another proposal that explicitly and specifically operates against the black and Asian British. I heard the Minister on the radio this morning saying——

Mr. Janman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a short debate. I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he was not going to give way. If the hon. Gentleman is patient, perhaps he will be called.

Mr. Hattersley: I am attempting to observe your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and it is up to other hon. Members to do the same.
The Minister says from time to time that these rules are non-discriminatory because they apply to every group in the community. Some rules which apply to every group in theory discriminate against one group in practice. Were the Minister to promise to penalise everyone called Khan or Hussain, he might try to argue that all Scotsmen called Khan and all Welshmen called Hussain would be similarly penalised, but it would be the Moslem British who suffered. That is how the rules work out: no matter how general they appear on paper, in practice the black and Asian British suffer. That is why we propose to vote against the statement.
I want to add a final footnote about this shabby little measure. It is clearly no coincidence that the Government announced yesterday their acceptance of DNA testing— so-called genetic fingerprinting. In the view of virtually every expert, the pilot study on that system was wholly unnecessary and, to most people's minds, was merely an excuse for delay. It has now been widely said—I hope the Minister will tell me whether it is true—that the evidence from the pilot study has been in his hands since at least last autumn.

Mr. Renton: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hattersley: Not so? Had the DNA test been applied from the moment when it was available it would have allowed into Britain families whose claims have been denied even though they have the right to be here——

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No.
The acceptance and implementation of the test have been held back until other barriers to immigration have been erected. The first barrier is the cost, which has risen from £50 a family to £60 a person. The second is today's abolition of the automatic rights of men who have lived here since 1973. That makes the Government's proposal all the more squalid and tawdry and it is why we shall vote against it with passion and enthusiasm.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I will not be taking interventions.
The proposals must be seen against a background of immigration policies over the last generation. It is a background of ever increasing availability of access to cheap international travel and of ever increasing awareness of the cornucopia of wealth that exists in the Western world for those of the Third world who can contrive to gain entry to it.
Devices and abuses are rampant. Conservative Members offer every support to the Government and to our hard-pressed immigration services in their efforts to thwart dishonest access to our society. Ours is a society which, in a negatation of democracy, has had its identity threatened in the past by a massive invasion of tribes and cultures which it neither willed nor supported. Our society's political defences were breached by the immediate enfranchisement of the invaders. It was undermined by the perverted idealism, empty racist cant —a more parliamentary word might be cynicism—and unprincipled vote-grubbing of the Opposition. I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is in his place.

Mr. Keith Vaz: rose—

Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way.
Freedom of speech has been barred by the thought police of the race relations industry, an incubus on good race relations spawned by Socialists for their own ends and providing lucrative jobs for the boys and for the agitators with whom they have aligned themselves—

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order or of disagreement?

Mr. Winnick: My first point of order is this. This is a narrow debate on the immigration rules. I wonder whether what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is saying meets that criterion.
My second point of order is this. The hon. Gentleman has referred to invaders, which is a deeply offensive term to millions of people who live in our country——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not make those sorts of points. The debate is on the immigration rules and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must relate his speech to them. He has been speaking for only two minutes, and no doubt this has been his preamble.

Mr. Marlow: I intend to be brief and, for the benefit of the Opposition, to get through as quickly as possible.
As the rules are set out, all our citizens are rightly equal before the law. There should be no negative or positive discrimination. No one should use our society while belonging to another. Those who have gained access should be the most fervent in their commitment, if only to discharge their obligation for the privilege that they have gained. To coin a slogan, Asian citizens could well drive British cars.
I support the rules in so far as they go——

Mr. Allan Rogers: rose——

Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way, and the hon. Gentleman knows why.
I support the rules in so far as they go, but I wish that they went further. There is much talk—we have heard it today from the Opposition—about the reunification of families, a benign objective which I support. But if one family member has left his native land for Britain, we do not, as far as I know, prevent him from returning to the bosom of his family. However, we are rightly anxious about who should have access to our country—minimising those from a different cultural background.
Certain rights have been granted and they should be modified. If two parties to a marriage share a common language, not English, surely it is more appropriate, more humane and more enlightened for the happy couple to settle in the land of their common language. We need to introduce a system of language tests. I am sure that my constituents, and the majority of the constituents of Opposition Members, would support that.
Secondly, the illegal acquisition of abode in our country, although the motive may be flattering, is theft, and thieves are criminals. There is pressure for the introduction of a system of identity cards to support the fight against crime, and if that helps in the apprehension of those criminals, so much the better.
Immigration, for most categories of migrants, should be considered not a right but a privilege—a privilege to be earned, not casually dispensed; a privilege the allocation of which must be firmly supervised. That, as we all know, although some Opposition Members would deny it, is our democratic duty.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I will not comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I was told before I came to the House that it had a number of ranters and ravers and we have just met the ultimate ranter and raver. He is a silly man and his speech, dangerous though it was, should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Let me deal now with the rules and the Immigration Act 1988 which will take effect on 1 August. Yet again, the Government have come before the House with a proposal that is pernicious and attacks Britain's black and Asian community. Yet again, they have come before the House with a proposal that will divide families and split communities, and put the black community at odds with the police.
I served on the Standing Committee which considered the Immigration Bill for 62 hours along with other colleagues. All our reasonable and moderate amendments were rejected by the Minister. The completion of all the stages of that Bill was marked yesterday with a fiasco of a party held on the 7th floor of the Home Office—a party, incidentally, that cost only £20. One wonders whether one should go to such a party. However, the passing of the Act and the rules were not celebrated with a party in my constituency among the many people who come to my surgeries and those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and others.

Mr. Hanley: rose——

Mr. Vaz: I shall not give way.
No party took place in the queues abroad in places such as Karachi and Islamabad where people have been waiting for many months, and possibly years, for an interview. The rules and the Act are undemocratic and unjust. They break promises made by successive Governments, Labour and Conservative, since 1971, and they introduce fees that have never existed before for certain cases.
I want to draw the attention of the House to one particular change in the rules. Rule 169 initiates something called supervised departure. It gives wide, undefined powers to the Secretary of State. Certain circumstances are referred to, but it is not clear what they are. There is no time limit on the period before a person is removed from Britain. Those who are to be deported are in a better position than those who undergo supervised departure. Under immigration rules 170 and 171 a person who is liable to deportation has a right of appeal. That does not apply to someone who has to undergo supervised departure.
The rules and the Act must be seen in the context of the Government's legislation over the past few years, including pernicious legislation such as the introduction of visas. An absurd situation has been created whereby constituents of mine who have applied for a visa to come to Britain to visit relatives or to attend a wedding have been refused admission and have then become locked into an appeal procedure that takes several months, possibly


years, to complete. That means that by the time the appeal has been completed, even though it is successful, any wedding that w as to have been attended will already have taken place.
The rules and the Act must be looked at in the context of the proposals published last week by the Home Office on the registration of the rights of Members of Parliament to intervene in immigration cases. We must look at them in the context of the new fees that were introduced on 1 June this year. The previous charge was £50 per family; it is now £60 per applicant.
There is clearly a need for legislation. There is clearly a need for Government action on immigration policy. I urge the Minister to start by looking at the length of queues in many of the sub-continent posts. For example, in New Delhi a woman waiting for her fiance has to wait eight months for an interview. In Bombay, it is nine months, in Dacca seven months, in Karachi 11 months, and in Islamabad 19 months.
We also have the figures for other posts abroad. I understand from figures that have been published by the Foreign Office that an applicant in Athens has to wait less than a week, in Copenhagen less than three weeks, and in Paris less than a week.

Ms. Short: We should also put on record the fact that a new hidden queue is growing in Britain of families who have been interviewed abroad, who have already waited a year, or perhaps two if it is a second application, and then are kept waiting for more than a year for their sponsor to be interviewed here. The Government will not admit to that. They will not give the figures in reply to parliamentary questions. That is a hidden, secret queue which is making the waiting process longer and longer.

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend has much experience in these matters and that leads me on to my next point—the crisis that exists at Lunar house.
On 16 November when the Home Secretary introduced the Immigration Bill he talked about providing a better customer service. Throughout the Immigration Bill Standing Committee the Minister talked about customer service and good value for money as if he were a junior manager with Marks and Spencer. The report of that good customer service was made public on 18 April this year when the Select Committee on Home Affairs described the operation of Lunar house as a scandal. It said:
We consider that the Home Office's failure to open and acknowledge promptly the 207,000 letters lying unopened or unacknowledged on 21 February 1988 to be scandalous and the overall aim of dealing with all applications for registration by December 1989 to be totally unacceptable.
Sir Brian Cubbon, a permanent under secretary of state at the Home Office, described to that Committee the mistakes made by the Home Office. Since this is the first opportunity that the Minister has had to speak on that report,. I hope that he will apologise to the House for what has occurred.
If the Minister listens carefully he will hear the weeping of those in my constituency and elsewhere who have been waiting for friends and relatives to visit them. Mr. Dulkon, who lives at 93 Doncaster road, has been told that his family cannot visit him because there is no guarantee that they will go back—no matter that they have provided affidavits and other information. He will hear the weeping and the tears of people such as Mrs. Jogia of 148 Brandon street who has been waiting for nine years to be reunited

with her husband. He will hear the weeping and tears of children, husbands and wives who will be unable to enter the country.
The Government's immigration policy, as reflected in these rules and the Immigration Act 1988, is uncaring, uncompassionate and uncommitted to the family. They thrive on the misery, hardship and anxiety of black and Asian people. Even at this late stage, I urge the Minister to withdraw the rules. I warn him that if he does not he will never be forgiven.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: There used to be some sort of reluctant agreement between the two great parties about the need to have something in the nature of the primary purpose rule. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has now moved away from that. He said that wherever there is a marriage it should give rise to the right to come into Britain. When he first put forward that argument he realised, for he is a wise and well-informed man, that that could give rise to a substantial increase in immigration. He covered himself by saying in a vague way that there would be some form of quota. He knew that it would be unpopular with his constituents if it were known that he was advocating a major increase in immigration.
There is no doubt that the primary purpose rule creates sadness and hardship at the margin. Any immigration control is bound to do that. Anything other than completely open ports, allowing the citizen of another country to join a fellow citizen, is bound to create some form of sadness. It is easy to say, pointing to one person or another, that that is harsh and that therefore the whole rule should be swept away. The House should realise that if Britain were to adopt the generosity being suggested by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, it would lead to a major increase in immigration. It would lead not only to an increase in primary immigration but would give rise to secondary immigration.
People coming into this country by reason of marriage would also have the consequential right to bring in their dependants. That is well understood. The right hon. Gentleman understands it because he covered himself by talking vaguely about quotas. Most of all, it would give rise to a major increase in immigration because of the system of arranged marriages. I am not arguing against arranged marriages. As one gets older and looks at the breakdown of so-called love marriages, one wonders whether there might not be a great deal to be said for arranged marriages. However, arranged marriages give rise to massive increases in immigration to Britain. As the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows, it would create a great deal of resentment, which would rub off on to the black and Asian community which is already lawfully in Britain. It cannot be in anybody's interests.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will my hon. Friend accept that there are many people living in my constituency, who previously lived in my hon. Friend's constituency, who already resent the fact that they are almost exiles in their own country because of the way in which the character of our towns and cities has been altered by successive Governments' policies on immigration over the past 40 years?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the House that we are discussing the proposed changes in immigration rules and not immigration generally.

Mr. Budgen: My hon. Friend used to live in my constituency and I have no doubt that——

Ms. Short: He is talking about himself.

Mr. Budgen: Perhaps he is, but he is well aware of the views of many people in the black country.
A major increase in immigration would create tension. That is the limited point I am making and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook——

Ms. Short: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we allow international travel, and we have the European free market and people travel around the world and meet each other, there will be more marriages across national boundaries? If the hon. Gentleman's argument is to hold up, that too will create a problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are discussing specific changes in immigration rules.

Ms. Short: We are talking about provisions for the control of marriage and immigration under the rules. The argument of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is that if we do not control marriages from the Indian sub-continent there will be unending immigration. In order to get married, one has to have a partner here willing to marry someone from abroad. That practice is changing and young people who grow up here are looking increasingly for partners who also grew up here. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's argument is deeply flawed. There is not an infinite potential. There are two partners to every marriage.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Lady is talking about the contraction of what is fashionably called a love marriage. I am confining my remarks to the arranged marriage and arguing that, whatever its advantages—they may be substantial—it could give rise to a considerable increase in immigration.
I want to take up another point raised by the hon. Lady. The arranged marriage creates considerable tensions within Asian households in Britain. Many hon. Members have some experience of the Asian community in Britain and I am one of them. For the past 14 years I have spent half the time that I spend on constituency cases dealing with what are described as immigration problems. One of the most frequent features of those problems is the father who says, "I would like to arrange for young Mr. Somebody from Jallunder to come to this country. Will you please do that because I have arranged a marriage between that gentleman and my daughter?" The next week along comes the daughter and says, "I know that my Dad came to see you last week. Please do not allow that gentleman to come to Britain because"——

Mr. Vaz: rose——

Mr. Budgen: I will give way when I have finished the sentence.
That daughter then goes on to say that she has been brought up in this country and that for better or worse she believes in the concept——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman help me by informing me to which of the proposed changes in the rules his speech relates?

Mr. Budgen: The primary purpose rule. I am trying to debate the point properly put forward by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Second generation Asians do not wish to see unrestricted entry to Britain by reason of arranged marriages. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook believes that he is currying favour by suggesting a relaxation of this rule, but he may find that it is unpopular with a large section of the young Asian community.
I accept that any rule is bound to be seen at the margin as restrictive, unkind and even unfair. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the House that, unless we have something approaching the primary purpose rule, we shall see a re-emergence not only of great tension within Asian households but of fears within the indigenous population. Sadly, the primary purpose rule is an essential tool of the control of immigration to Britain.

Mr. Alex Carlile: The immigration rules are supposedly a system of rules which enables cases to be examined on their merits. As time has gone by, a number of amendments have been made, as we can see in the preface to the statement of changes, which have meant that cases are considered much less on their merits than was originally intended and much more on the basis of political prejudice.
The extravagant exaggeration by the Minister on the radio this morning has done little to enable the public to consider the problems of immigrant families upon their merits and, indeed, has done a good deal to worsen the perception of the problems faced by families who wish to bring spouses and others into this country.
The Minister starts from the premise that there is an enormous desire for mass immigration to the United Kingdom, but there is no real evidence of a desire to enter the United Kingdom in huge numbers, except, possibly, the potential desire in the future of white people from South Africa to enter this country in large numbers. I shall be interested to see, if and when that happens, what will be the reaction of the Government, if they are in office then.
The Government claim to be the party of the family, at least from time to time, but, as described earlier by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), this measure, although modest, does no credit to the Government's attitude towards the family. Their attitude towards the family, in relation to immigration and particularly the primary purpose rule—we are here concerned with paragraph 1B of the statement of changes —is shown by the operation of the new DNA screening system. Of course, I welcome the Government's acceptance of the DNA screening system. I hope that they will not try to take over the system, but will leave its operation in the hands of the company which has skilfully developed it and which can offer the tests at the reasonable cost of about £115.
However, what I find incomprehensible about the Government's attitude to the DNA screening system is that they are not prepared to save money by paying for the tests. If one takes, on the one hand, the cost of the traditional, bureaucratic method of dealing with applications and, on the other hand, the one-off cost of £115 of


producing a sure result from DNA screening, it is quite clear, even at a glance, let alone with close examination, that the DNA screening system is much cheaper. The Minister should therefore go back, look at the system once again and come to the conclusion that, where people have eventually penetrated the long queues mentioned earlier and are able to undergo DNA tests, the Government should economise by paying for those tests.

Ms. Short: The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that it is possible to obtain legal aid to pay for the DNA test when someone has waited a long time, been through the complex and costly bureaucratic system that currently exists and has been refused by officials. Many hon. Members have come across cases that have then succeeded, which is an even more wasteful procedure. Public funds are going into DNA screening, but there are now double spending levels, which could be done away with if we administered the test immediately someone applied for it. That would save time and money for everyone concerned.

Mr. Carlile: The spending of which the hon. Lady spoke is probably at a quadruple or quintuple level because people have had to go to the extent of obtaining legal advice. The Government should adopt the system, not halfheartedly, but wholeheartedly.
I wish to make two other points about the statement of changes. The first relates to new paragraph 90 and new paragraph 150A. Those two new paragraphs specifically exclude rights of appeal. New paragraph 150A excludes as clearly as possible any appeal on the merits. If the Minister were listening, I would be asking him why, particularly in new paragraph 150A, the Government have decided specifically to exclude a right of appeal on the merits. The rules will lose their respect, not just among the legal community, but throughout the world, if they are seen to be the fist of Government rather than a system that ensures fair play.
The second matter that I wish to raise relates to new rule 56 in paragraph 5 of the statement of changes. Is the Minister satisfied that that rule will not prove unfair to legitimate political refugees in the United Kingdom? Those refugees will include people who may well have restructured their lives, for example, journalists from South Africa who have come to this country because they could no longer live with the political system there, but who in restructuring their lives and settling here have only been able to obtain employment abroad. Those people may well be disadvantaged because it may be difficult for them to return to this country for any length of time within a period of two years.
There is no evidence of the need for the changes and no justification for them. The Minister could have made far more constructive changes by, for example, paying for DNA screening for applicants. The statement of changes is merely the annual pandering to political prejudices in parts of his own party.

Sir Dudley Smith: I shall be reasonably brief, but I should perhaps declare an interest because I represent about 7,000 members of the Sikh community in my area and have done so for quite a number of years. As the years go by, one becomes accustomed to dealing with their problems, and there have

been many problems. We cannot just listen to Opposition Members. It needs saying that the race relations system in this country is much better than it was and, certainly in my area, harmonisation has extended very much to the Sikh community, the vast majority of whom are now well integrated. Although there are always exceptions, many people are well satisfied with their situation.
I wish to make two important points in view of the comments of other hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr Budgen), in his excellent and accurate speech, spoke about the people who wish to enter this country. From the beginning of next month, people who want to bring a family or come here for marriage purposes will have to show that they have support and accommodation and that the marriage was not entered into primarily to evade the immigration procedures. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we have all encountered cases in which the girl has come along and said, "I don't want to be married under the arranged marriage system." I wish to take the matter a little further. I am sure that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have encountered cases in which the people who originally said to us, "Will you arrange for that man to come in to marry my daughter?" have come back and said, "Will you get rid of that man because he married my daughter and came here primarily"——

Mr. Vaz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Dudley Smith: No, I shall not give way because Opposition Members have not given way to us. Hon. Members know that I normally give way, but this is a short debate.
Those people have come back and said that they have realised that the young men had come into this country primarily to evade the immigration rules, had paid scant regard to their daughters, gone off to another part of the country and totally abused the rules and regulations. I have had dozens of such cases, as I am sure have other hon. Members. That does no favour to the genuine cases, those people who want and are entitled to come here and wish to make a success of it. That needs to be understood by the House.
Secondly, those who overstay in future will not be able to plead compassionate reasons—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and others may not like what I am about to say, but it is the truth. They should ask some of my constituents——

Ms. Short: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Dudley Smith: No, I shall not give way. I shall be even less ready to give way if the hon. Lady continues to shout at me.
There have been instances where important com-passionate grounds have existed, but if we are honest and place our hands on our hearts, we know that many others have been bogus. Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have received applications that have been based on compassionate grounds. However, having examined the details and exercised my judgment, I have been sure that the grounds were bogus. It is right that new rules should be introduced in fairness to those who make genuine applications.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is aware, like many others, that, following the changes that were made to the rules a comparatively short time ago,


almost 99 per cent. of those who visit the United Kingdom for a holiday or other special reasons are now returning without any problem. That is an excellent record. It is one to be valued and the minority populations are to be commended. It is welcomed by the Sikh leaders in my constituency. We know now that those who visit the United Kingdom will be honest and arrange to return to their own country at the proper time. The more that we can ensure that that happens, the better.
The references of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to "shabby" and "squalid" when describing the statement of changes do nothing to improve race relations. Instead, he foments bad relations. It seems that he wants to do so. We must work for a better understanding with sensible and reasonable guidelines. The right hon. Gentleman, who holds the important position of shadow Home Secretary, should realise that Britain is a small island in global terms. We have a large population and over the past 30 or 40 years we have been extremely generous in terms of the number of people that we have allowed in from the Commonwealth, especially the new Commonwealth. I am glad to say that the vast majority have settled extremely satisfactorily. These immigrants have done a good job and they have integrated. I am not prepared to allow the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that the Government are doing everything that they can to work against the interests of these people. However, enough is enough. We have been promised over many years that, having accepted such a large number of immigrants, immigration would tail off. It is beginning to do so.

Mr. Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Dudley Smith: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend because I wish to be brief.
Immigration is beginning to tail off, and it should now begin fundamentally to come to an end. If it does, there will be far more hope that further efforts towards achieving the better integration of those who have come here will be successful and better appreciated by those who are here. I am talking of those who are reasonable and sensible, who do not try to politicise the situation. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to do. I think that he is on the right lines.

Mr. Paul Boateng: The spectre raised by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) of all the grateful Sikhs doing obeisance to him because the Government have introduced the statement of changes is the most perverse and wild fantasy. It is nonsense to suggest that the Afro-Caribbean or Asian communities, or any people of good will, would welcome a measure of this nature. It is a sordid and squalid measure. Above all, its great evil is that it is socially divisive. It is the consequence of that division—the rules will create rifts in our society and exacerbate existing rifts —that the House should be mindful of when considering the statement of changes.
The clearest example of that danger was provided for us by the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). The language that the hon. Gentleman used and the tone in which the speech was

delivered demonstrated the great evils of measures of this sort. I have some sympathy—I see some of my hon. Friends recoiling in horror at my use of the word "sympathy"—for the Minister of State and the position in which he finds himself.

Mr. Greville Janner: No.

Mr. Boateng: I knew that that would be the response.
I have some sympathy with the Minister for having to introduce a measure of this nature. He is sitting on a volcano in his party. It is a volcano of pus that every now and again is bound to erupt on the Government Benches. When it does, the only way in which someone in his position can survive is to introduce a measure of this sort. Whether he introduces it or not, the pus is still there and it creeps through. That pus was represented by the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North. How dare he describe black people in this country—Afro-Caribbean or Asian people—as invaders. Afro-Caribbeans and Asians are here specifically at the Government's invitation. They were invited to come here after the war to do the dirty work which many people in this country were not prepared to do. That is why Afro-Caribbean and Asian people are in this country. Having come here, done that work and made a valuable contribution, they are required to respond to rules and regulations that are socially divisive and damaging.

Mr. Janman: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the invaders to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) refers—he correctly referred to an invasion—are indeed invaders because the British people have never given any British Government a mandate to allow the invasion to happen?

Mr. Boateng: That is an argument that the hon. Gentleman should put to the predecessor of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). It was Enoch Powell who issued an invitation to women like my mother-in-law from Barbados, and others from elsewhere from the Commonwealth, to work in Britain in the National Health Service. It is an argument that the hon. Gentleman should address to his right hon. and hon. Friends instead of throwing it in the face of Opposition Members.
We then heard talk about people being made aliens in their own land. I have news for the House. The Afro-Caribbean and Asian people who will be affected by the rules and regulations say, "This is our land. We intend to stay here come what may." The Government can put all the rules and regulations on the statute book that they want. They can introduce measures of greater and greater oppression. I believe that the majority of people in this Britain, in this country of ours, black or white, are opposed to measures of the sort that we are now discussing. They know what the social consequences will be. The Minister of State must be aware of the consequences.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In the mid-1950s, when there was full employment, there was active recruitment of labour from the Indian sub-continent. Many doctors came here to work in the National Health Service. Indeed, Governments had to put a bar on their coming here. There was active recruitment of medical staff in the Caribbean. A most active member of the Government during that period——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Let us return to the changes to the rules.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has considerable experience of these matters and his analysis is right.
When we examine the rules against the backcloth of the history to which my hon. Friend has referred, we find measures that, by any rational analysis, are completely unsupportable. It cannot be right to deny people the right of appeal. It cannot be right to require people to go through the sort of hoops that the primary purpose rule imposes on them. It cannot be right to construct an edifice that causes delay, obstruction and administrative chaos, to which the rules and regulations before us will add. The rules and regulations are unfair and they will prove to be unworkable. It does our country and the House no credit that they are being discussed in this way.
We must reflect on the impact that the rules and regulations will have on the reputation and on the perception of our country as being a place where equity counts for something, where it is considered right to be just and to give people access to the courts and review of decisions that affect people's future, their liberty and their quality of life.
What is so sad and sickening about these measures is that, even when the Government recognise the need to make changes, and acknowledge, as they did yesterday in relation to DNA tests, the benefits that changes can bring, still there is a nasty piece of meanness lurking in the background. It is that meanness in terms of who is to pay, and in terms of where the burden will be felt, that suggests to me that the House should rise up and express a degree of protest.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is another kind of meanness, which is vicious, and not far removed from the proposed changes to the rules? It is that people who have been excluded in the past but who would have been admitted had the DNA rules applied and who were wrongly kept out and not allowed to join their parents because the Government had got it wrong will not now be permitted to enter the country, even though the DNA rules have been accepted? That is partly due to the changes that the Government propose making.

Mr. Boateng: If that is so, that will be of grave concern to hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about fairness. It is for the Minister to answer specifically my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who has raised an alarming possibility. I am grateful to him for pointing out that danger.
In addition to the burdens imposed by the new rules and regulations, there will be another imposition in the form of the requirement that people should pay for the oppressive rules to which they are subject. Not only has the application fee been increased from £50 to £60 but each and every member of a family will have to pay that amount. It does not take much of a sympathetic imagination to anticipate the impact of that financial imposition on a family on the sub-continent. They will already have scrimped and saved to accrue £50, and then £60, and now find that for a normal family application they will have to pay £300. It does not take much of an imagination to grasp what that will mean. How can it be

justified? Will the Minister justify to the House that degree of meanness? If so, we await his justification, but we have not heard it so far.
What is left behind is the suspicion that these measures are not about revenue or meeting genuine administrative costs, but about ensuring that there is yet another obstacle in the way of families wishing to come together. That, from a party claiming to be the party of the family. We ask the question: what family? Is it only white families that the Government care about? Do they not care about Asian and Afro-Caribbean families? Do they not care about people who just happen to have a different colour skin?
Those are profound moral questions. We have listened to the debate and have not found any answers. It must be appreciated that there are many millions of people outside this Chamber, in the wider world and in this country, who care that we should make the right decision. In this instance, the right decision is to throw out these rules and regulations. They are not worthy of the House, and they are not worthy of our country.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: The reason why I welcome these rules is that they are part of the containment of mass immigration that I see as threatening our society. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said very forcibly—because he obviously strongly believes this—that this country does belong to members of the Afro-Caribbean community who have come here to live permanently. Of course he is right. It is because he is right that I also believe it is necessary to maintain strong control over immigration at the borders. If the hon. Member for Brent, South does not share that belief, I find it difficult to understand how he can have had any experience of inner cities. I view these rules as a continuation of the process of containment.
Because of the way in which we have mishandled immigration policies in the past, the damage done by mass immigration still poses a threat to the cohesion of our society. We face a number of social and racial problems. Earlier in the debate it was said that some immigrant communities are regarded as problematical. That is rubbish. It is sometimes in the host communities that problems are created. It does not matter in which section of the community the problems lie; they result from major changes to our country's racial content and from mass immigration.
Another reason for containing mass immigration relates to the population. The first experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) in inner cities was in Peckham, as was mine. He referred briefly to the over-populated nature of this country. If Opposition Members cannot see that many of the problems our country has today derive from heavily concentrated populations and sheer numbers of people —of whatever kind or race—they are blind to reality.
The burden of the problems we are now debating has fallen overwhelmingly on those living in inner cities. The fact that those problems are concentrated among a particular group of people ought to make us more concerned to limit massive immigration rather than pretend that it is not a threat.

Mr. Janman: My hon. Friend spoke about containment, but we appear to be closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Is he aware that one in three children


born in Greater London is of ethnic extraction? The national ethnic research group estimates that the country's ethnic population now totals 4·2 million, which is nearly 8 per cent. of the population and twice the Home Office figure.

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. In the past, we have allowed totally unplanned mass immigration, which has produced problems that have not been properly assessed. As a society, we have also failed to provide for the reception and care of immigrants who have come into our communities, and the problems have been exacerbated as a result.
I welcome the proposed changes. It is important to close the loophole. I support the ending of discrimination between male and female spouses. Unless I misheard him, I understood the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to attack that provision dealing with polygamous marriages. I was interested to hear one raunchy—if one may so describe him in acceptable parliamentary language—African bishop suggesting this week to the Church of England's General Synod that it ought to support and allow polygamy within the Church of England. However, I do not believe that that is acceptable to the Church of England or to British society. I support the rules as a necessary continuation of the containment of mass immigration.

Mr. Pat Wall: I begin by congratulating the Minister of State. Any Minister who has managed to survive the absolute chaos at Lunar house in relation to British nationality applications, and the equal chaos surrounding the Passport Office, must have done very well to survive also the Prime Minister's midsummer roundabout. The Minister must have some special talents that he has still to exhibit.
Unlike Conservative Members, I shall deal specifically with the rules. I refer, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), to one rule in particular, and ask the Minister for an explanation. I refer to paragraphs 9 and 11 of HC 555, dealing with deportation. One of the matters that struck my hon. Friends during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill was the whittling away of people's deportation rights. This rule is being introduced against the background of the threatened deportation of Tamils, including Virag Mendis, back to a country where there is absolute chaos, widespread killing, destruction, torture, kidnapping and disappearances.
The rule suggests that in certain circumstances—and I ask the Minister to define them—people can be given a supervised departure. I think that we are entitled to know what that means. After they have been "departed" it seems that those people can be excluded from re-entry, although they may wish to return as students, business people or members of any other legitimate category, for an unspecified period. Perhaps it is my suspicious nature, but I have a feeling that the rule is aimed at political people. It is intended to ensure that those who may have political beliefs that are embarrassing to the Government are excluded. I should like a full explanation of this

mumbo-jumbo, because I do not think that many people know what these terms mean or in what cases they will apply.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was absolutely right to deal with the primary purpose issue. Conservative Members like to talk about numbers: they like to quantify. Some are particulary happy when they can talk in terms of hordes. The principle of the primary purpose rule, irrespective of the numbers involved, is entirely unfair, unreasonable, impractical and arbitrary. Under this rule, someone who can prove that he or she does not want to come to Britain in any circumstances and has just been married will be allowed in. That is nonsensical and entirely subjective.
Along, no doubt, with far more experienced hon. Members, I advise constituents after examining their cases that they have little chance, and they then sail through. Similarly, when I tell them that I can see no objection, they are rejected. Even someone with the most genuine marriage who will have no problems relating to accommodation or other needs is threatened by the rule. As there is already a rule that the marriage must show itself to be genuine, there is absolutely no reason for the primary purpose rule. The Minister should have altered it, or withdrawn it entirely.
Like many hon. Members, I am very suspicious of a system that makes people wait for one, two or three years on the Indian sub-continent—after which their case is referred back here—then wait another year or 18 months for an appointment and a further eight months for the result of the interview. The system has deliberately been made cruel and difficult. Young people in their 20s, men and women, come to our surgeries and say, "I am married to someone whom I have known for years, and the marriage is one of genuine affection." When we know the decent, nice families involved and witness their worry and heartbreak we realise what such delays mean in human terms.
I wanted to ignore some of the bigots on the Conservative Benches, but I must take up one remark. It was asked, "Why do they not go back if we will not let their husbands in?". What would that hon. Member think if he were a Bradford girl of 20 or 22 who had lived here since she was two or three—[HON. MEMBERS: "Born here."]—who has lived only in Britain and knows only the British way of life, and who has a child who goes to a British school and knows only British education? How can Conservative Members suggest that she should go back to a village in Bangladesh, sit on the floor and collect fuel and water every day? What arrogant, cruel, rotten nonsense that is.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I thank my hon. Friends for their support for the rule changes during the past hour and a half. Let me say at once what a contrast their remarks have provided, even in such a short debate, to the barren speeches of Opposition Members, full of hatred and lacking in any positive suggestions.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: No. I have only a few minutes.
Even by his standards, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) was stupendously silly about the small


party given last night by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He and his fellow party poopers—the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), I understand—instead of attending the small party, paraded outside the Home Office and formed a picket. Doubtless the picket carried placards saying, "Reshuffle Renton".
It caused great surprise to civil servants attending the party to have microphones thrust into their faces and to be asked their views. It is a normal courtesy for a senior Minister on such an occasion to give a small party to thank the civil servants for the work that they have done. No doubt the cost of answering the question posed by the hon. Member for Bradford, West about the party was a good deal more than the cost of the party.
As it has been difficult sometimes to remember what we are debating this afternoon, the subject is the rule changes that followed from the Immigration Act 1988, which we debated at length in Committee earlier in the Session. The rule changes effectively implement the Act and accompany the separate order made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which brings sections 1 to 5 of the Act into force. Taking those parts of the Act that came into force, automatically on 10 July and those now being brought into force the result is that from 1 August the whole Act will have been implemented, with the exception of section 7(1) and paragraph 1 of the schedule.
The implementation of section 7(1), which concerns European Community nationals exercising their rights under the treaty of Rome, will take place as soon as we are able to bring forward an Order in Council under the European Communities Act 1972 to replace the relevant parts of the immigration rules. The preparation of the order is a complex matter. It will take some months yet. Rather than implementing the rest of the Act, we decided to bring most of it into force now and to change the rules at this stage. We shall complete the process when the Order in Council is ready. Our aim is, if at all possible, to take the opportunity of the further changes to the immigration rules, which will then be necessary, to consolidate the rules into one document. A strong wish was expressed for that in Committee, and I think that it will be welcomed by all.
With only one exception, the statement of changes contains nothing that is not entirely consequential on the provisions of the Immigration Act 1988. That exception relates to the definition of public funds contained in the rules. It is necessary to update the definition to take account of the changes to the social security system brought about by the implementation of the Social Security Act 1986. The revised definition involves changes in nomenclature only; no changes of substance are involved.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The question of primary purpose occupied a great part of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) rightly pointed out that a large increase in immigration numbers was likely should we have no clause to make certain that marriage was not used simply as a means of obtaining settlement in this country when it would not

otherwise be available. I remind the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that it was the Labour Government who in 1977 produced the first test of this sort to control marriages of convenience. It was never said in 1971 that section 1(5) would remain in force in perpetuity. The intention was to offer reassurance to those men of working age who were already here at that time that they could bring their existing wives and children to join them here, but it has proved to have much wider effects than that, which are both discriminatory and damaging to effective immigration control.
Those who assumed at the time that the 1971 Act was passed that they would be protected by section 1(5) have now had over 15 years in which to bring their families here. After such a period, it is surely wholly reasonable to draw the line and to say that from now on everybody who wishes to bring a spouse or a child to settle here should be on the same footing.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister make a definitive statement on the primary purpose rule? Is it the intention to distinguish between genuine and bogus marriages, or is it the intention to limit the numbers coming to this country?

Mr. Renton: I shall return shortly to the right hon. Gentleman's demand for a quota. We shall have to explore it because it is the only new Labour party policy on immigration that we have heard of for many months.

Ms. Short: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way. There is very little time left.
I should have thought that the Government's publication of the detailed report on DNA testing, in answer to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), would have been welcomed, but instead the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook cast doubt on it.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) asked about the cost. That is not an easy question to answer. We are talking not about £115, plus VAT, for one sample but about a cost of between £400 and £500 for a family. Our firm view is that that cost should not be borne by the taxpayer. We accept the principles that underlie the DNA test, but we shall have to work out with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office how the queues of applicants for the DNA tests are to be managed and how the cost is to be most fairly borne, bearing in mind that it is not to be borne by the taxpayer.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery also asked about paragraph 150A. That paragraph goes no further than section 5 of the Act, which was the subject of very full debate earlier this Session. The present appeals system has, in our view, been abused by many people who have sought to extend their stay here by arguing at their appeal against deportation factors that should not be allowed to outweigh the fact that they have overstayed or have broken the conditions of their stay. That is why we are making these amendments.
I agree with the hon. Members for Leicester, East and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) that the past year has put great pressure on the immigration and nationality department. We have simplified the rules. About 20 per cent. of the cases handled by the immigration and


nationality department will be dealt with automatically. We have introduced the new Immigration Act and today we are introducing further immigration rule changes.
I take this opportunity to thank the staff at Lunar house for all that they have done to help in this difficult year, but at every stage the Opposition have taken the opportunity to vote against what we are doing. It is only fair to ask about their motives.
What is the motive of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook? In his remarks this afternoon and in the speech that he made in Manchester last night he returned to accusations of racism. Is it because he feels that it is necessary to prove his credentials in the election campaign that is taking place inside the Labour party? Does he wish to prove his credentials as someone who is willing to shout "Racist" from the rooftops against every attempt by this Government to improve the fair but firm operation of the immigration controls? [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook giggles, but if that is his motive I regard it as pitiful.
In the New Statesman of 15 July the black section of the Labour party——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the black section of the Labour party has anything to do with the changes to the immigration laws.

Mr. Renton: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the quotation is relevant. Perhaps you will allow me to refer to it. The black section accuses the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook in particular of being its worst enemy and the beneficiary of godfather politics. Is it for that reason that we have seen this sudden increase in the extreme remarks of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook? Our motives in introducing the legislative changes of recent months have been entirely honourable. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman is making a rude gesture to me, I have to inform him that that is not appropriate behaviour in this House.

Mr. Hattersley: rose——

Mr. Renton: Our motives are that we should have a quicker system that is conscious of everybody's rights, that will be able to interview fiancées and spouses more quickly in this country and that will help us to act more speedily to decide the claims of applicants for refugee status and ensure that those who have a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution in their own country are provided with a safe haven here without having to wait agonising years for a decision. Those are the reasons behind the changes that we have introduced.
The Labour party's motives are suspect. It tries to face two ways at once on this issue. For that reason it ends up by voting even against the simplest measures to improve the operation of the immigration controls in this country. Our motives, on the other hand, are straightforward and honourable. It is to make the immigration rules operate fairly and more effectively and speedily that I recommend the rules changes to the House.

Mr. Hattersley: You will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Minister of State promised to say something about the figures. He has intentionally failed to do so. That leads

me to the conclusion that all reasonable people will hold that his only concern is to limit the number of black and Asian people coming to this country. It is a deplorable policy and we shall vote against it.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 259.

Division No. 447]
[5.38 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Galbraith, Sam


Allen, Graham
Galloway, George


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Armstrong, Hilary
George, Bruce


Ashdown, Paddy
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gould, Bryan


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Battle, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beckett, Margaret
Hardy, Peter


Bermingham, Gerald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blair, Tony
Haynes, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Heffer, Eric S.


Boyes, Roland
Hinchliffe, David


Bradley, Keith
Hogg, N.(C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Holland, Stuart


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Home Robertson, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hood, Jimmy


Buckley, George J.
Howell, Rt Hon D.(S'heath)


Caborn, Richard
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cartwright, John
Illsley, Eric


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
John, Brynmor


Clay, Bob
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clelland, David
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cohen, Harry
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cousins, Jim
Kennedy, Charles


Cox, Tom
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Crowther, Stan
Kirkwood, Archy


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamond, James


Cunningham, Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Darling, Alistair
Leighton, Ron


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Lewis, Terry


Dewar, Donald
Litherland, Robert


Dixon, Don
Livsey, Richard


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Doran, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Loyden, Eddie


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eadie, Alexander
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
Macdonald, Calum A.


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
McKelvey, William


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
McLeish, Henry


Fatchett, Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Faulds, Andrew
McTaggart, Bob


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McWilliam, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Madden, Max


Fisher, Mark
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flannery, Martin
Mallon, Seamus


Flynn, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael J.(Springburn)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Meacher, Michael






Meale, Alan
Salmond, Alex


Michael, Alun
Sedgemore, Brian


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Sheerman, Barry


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Short, Clare


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Skinner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, C.(Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morley, Elliott
Smith, Rt Hon J.(Monk'ds E)


Morris, Rt Hon A.(W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Mowlam, Marjorie
Spearing, Nigel


Mullin, Chris
Steel, Rt Hon David


Murphy, Paul
Steinberg, Gerry


Nellist, Dave
Strang, Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Vaz, Keith


Parry, Robert
Wall, Pat


Patchett, Terry
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter L.
Wareing, Robert N.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Prescott, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan W.(Carm'then)


Randall, Stuart
Winnick, David


Redmond, Martin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Worthington, Tony


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wray, Jimmy


Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Frank Cook and Mr. Adam Ingram.


Rowlands, Ted



Ruddock, Joan





NOES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amos, Alan
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)


Ashby, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K.(Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Atkinson, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Q.(Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dicks, Terry


Benyon, W.
Dorrell, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Favell, Tony


Bottomley, Peter
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bowis, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
French, Douglas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gardiner, George


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gill, Christopher


Buck, Sir Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Budgen, Nicholas
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burns, Simon
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Burt, Alistair
Gow, Ian


Butcher, John
Gower, Sir Raymond





Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Gregory, Conal
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Sir Charles


Grylls, Michael
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mudd, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neale, Gerrard


Hanley, Jeremy
Neubert, Michael


Hannam, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hargreaves, A.(B'ham H'll Gr')
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawkins, Christopher
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hayes, Jerry
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patnick, Irvine


Heddle, John
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pawsey, James


Hill, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powell, William (Corby)


Holt, Richard
Price, Sir David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howard, Michael
Redwood, John


Howarth, G.(Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Tim


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Hughes, Robert G.(Harrow W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hunter, Andrew
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rost, Peter


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Irving, Charles
Sackville, Hon Tom


Jack, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Jackson, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Janman, Tim
Scott, Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, David (Dover)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Key, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G.(Norfolk SW)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knowles, Michael
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Latham, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Ivan
Squire, Robin


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lord, Michael
Stokes, Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McCrindle, Robert
Summerson, Hugo


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, P.(New Forest)
Thompson, D.(Calder Valley)


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thornton, Malcolm


Maples, John
Thurnham, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tracey, Richard


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tredinnick, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Trippier, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mills, Iain
Waldegrave, Hon William






Walden, George
Wilshire, David


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. David Maclean.


Widdecombe, Ann



Wiggin, Jerry

Question accordingly negatived.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th July 1988, be approved.
This is a short debate and I should like to focus on five issues and then try, at the end of the debate, to deal with points made by hon. Members.
I wish first to emphasise the distinction between the codes of practice order which we are debating now and orders that will be laid subsequently under section 60(1)(b)of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The code that we are debating is laid under section 67(5) of that Act and it is the code referred to in section 60(1) (a). The code regulates the manner in which the taping of interviews takes place. The code does not of itself make the taping of interviews mandatory. The taping of interviews is made mandatory by orders made under section 60(1)(b), none of which has yet been made.
Secondly, I should like to describe the Government's approach to taping. The Government have decided that the entire interview should be taped, but in the great majority of cases the courts will have before them a written summary of interviews. There will be a master tape. There will also be a second tape—the working tape—which will be the source of all copy tapes and any transcripts that may be ordered. In appropriate cases, which I anticipate will be fairly rare, transcripts will be available. This approach has been tested for two years in six trial areas, and the process was overseen by the national steering committee. The conclusions of the trial have been reported and show that our approach is practicable and beneficial.
Thirdly, I should like to consider the introduction of taping under orders that will be made under section 60(1) (b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We intend to phase taping in over five years. We hope and intend that it should be standard practice by the end of 1991. By the end of this year, we expect taping to be prevalent throughout 10 force areas and to be used in all force areas. We anticipate that we shall lay commencement orders, if I may so describe them, in the coming Session.
Fourthly, I should like briefly to mention the effect of breaches of the code. There are two significant effects which the House would like to bear in mind. Non-compliance with the code constitutes a disciplinary offence. That is provided for in section 67(8) of PACE. In appropriate cases, non-compliance with the code could lead to the exclusion of all or part of the interview evidence. It depends on the exercise by the judge of his discretion.
Fifthly, I should like to consider terrorism and cases brought under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which are those that concern espionage. Hon. Members will have noted that those categories of offence are exempted from the code. We do not intend, at least for the moment, that they should be subject to the taping requirements. There are two reasons which need to be mentioned. First, they were not the subject of any trials. That is not the substantive objection, however, which is that we fear that if the full tape was made and its contents became available to terrorist organisations it would


compromise national security. We also fear that if an interviewee saw that the entire interview was being taped, that interviewee would be reluctant to proceed with the giving of information.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: What the Minister has just said will create considerable alarm among many practising lawyers because the implication is that, if transcripts of interviews in terrorist investigations are not made available to the defence, there must be some secreting of information about interviews. Moreover, the purpose of taping is to have a true and accurate record of what is said in an interview. Why should a terrorist trial, which is a criminal trial in another form, be treated any differently?

Mr. Hogg: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the provisions of paragraph 3.2 on page 2 of the code. He will see that only some terrorist trials are excluded from the scope of the taping requirement. In very broad terms, IRA and Northern Ireland related cases are excluded from the scope of the taping requirement, as are cases involving international terrorism. However, United Kingdom oriented terrorism, other than cases with a Northern Ireland dimension, are subject to the taping requirement. That should make the position factually plain.
On the specific point raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), we must make a judgment about what is in the national interest. In the course of any interview between a terrorist of the kind to which the code refers, and to whom I am directing my remarks, and the interviewing officer, the interview will be prolonged. It is quite probable that the interviewee will disclose many matters which we would not wish terrorist organisations to know—for example, his sources.
Let us assume that there is a full tape recording of the interview which contains much sensitive material, in particular about sources, possible leaks or possible plants within, for example, the IRA. Our fear is that that tape could become known to a terrorist organisation. Although the vast majority of lawyers are wholly honest, we cannot exclude the possibility that some may deliberately, or under duress, be induced to give information to terrorist organisations. We must guard against that. In essence, that is the justification for the restriction to which I have just referred.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that, in existing circumstances, if someone is interviewed for a terrorist offence, at the very least a contemporaneous record of the interview will be kept? The whole of that record will be disclosed to the defence lawyers unless there is misconduct on the part of police officers in concealing part of it or misconduct by the Crown Prosecution Service—which is most unlikely to happen. What distinction can be made between keeping a contemporaneous record and making a tape recording? Bearing in mind problems with regard to interviews in the Birmingham pub bombing case and other cases, does he agree that a tape recording is a much surer way of giving true evidence to the court?

Mr. Hogg: I asked myself that question. The answer is that the premise is not wholly sound. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, guidelines are issued by

the Attorney-General which permit the editing of such information held in contemporaneous documents. That is more easily done than editing tapes.
The nature of contemporary records means that they are directed to things that are regarded as probative and relevant. Therefore, it is quite common for the contemporary written document not to be an inclusive record of the interview because those making the written record take the view that much of the "sensitive" material is not admissible, probative or relevant. Therefore, that material would not necessarily have to be included in the written account. If the defence counsel took a different view and wanted to bring before the court material not included in the written record, that would be possible through cross-examination. Although I often share the hon. and learned Gentleman's views, on this occasion I believe that he is mistaken.

Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edunds): My question is diametrically opposed to the points raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). My hon. Friend the Minister is right to want to safeguard national security by some method of exclusion. However, the worst method of exclusion would involve editing tape. I am glad therefore that my hon. Friend has set his face against editing tape. If that were to happen, it would compromise the whole taping integrity that we are seeking.
How on earth is the ordinary police officer conducting a taped interview to distinguish between terrorism which, although taking place within the United Kingdom, is connected with Northern Ireland and terrorism that involves the affairs of the United Kingdom but not Northern Ireland? That is an almost impossible distinction for an officer to make.

Mr. Hogg: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I believe that trying to resolve the problem by editing tape is extremely undesirable.
We could approach the problem by taping a summary of the evidence which would be read over at the end of the interview. That summary would be taped. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) will recall, the Royal Commission on criminal evidence and procedure, which originally recommended taping inter-views, recommended taping a summary, not the entire interview. The Government have gone beyond the Royal Commission's original recommendation. We intend to explore methods of resolving the kind of difficulties to which both the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery have drawn attention without resorting to taping the entire interview.
I want to deal with the difficult point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths). The definitions are included in paragraph 3.2 on page 2 of the code. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds is holding a copy of the code. That paragraph is clarified to some degree by the notes to that section and will be further clarified by training and the circular that we intend to issue to the police service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds will bear in mind the fact that the procedure will apply at a fairly senior level because we are talking about a small number of very serious offences. I believe that senior


officers will readily be able to make the distinction. I accept that the definition in paragraph 3.2 needs reading several times to master its meaning. However, once one has grasped the meaning, its practical application will not be difficult.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I apologise for intervening again. By raising the matter now, I hope that I can shorten my contribution to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, as a matter of practice, when a police interview of this type is being conducted, information emerges, much of which may be unknown to the police officer at the commencement of the interview. While the officer is pursuing inquiries related to a suspected terrorist offence affecting a Northern Ireland matter, during the interrogation matters pertaining to other types of terrorist offences may emerge. For example, information may arise about the middle east. We all know about Libyan arms going to Northern Ireland. Alternatively, matters may arise affecting this country, for example, the potential assassination of a Minister or a member of the royal family. No police officer can make that judgment at the commencement of the interview. However, the definition requires him to make that kind of judgment. That is impracticable.

Mr. Hogg: Plainly the House will listen with great sympathy to any point made on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. He has a wide experience of these matters. However, I think that he is wrong. I do not deny that one could construct a case in such circumstances. My hon. Friend has a fertile and imaginative mind and I have no doubt that he could do so. In the majority of terrorist cases, one has a shrewd idea of the nature of the offence and whether it is related to Northern Ireland or Libya or whether it is a United Kingdom-directed act of terrorism that is unconnected with Libya or Northern Ireland. It is a mistake to suppose that police officers embark on an interview without having a pretty shrewd idea of the nature and motives of the terrorist organisation that they are investigating.
I recognise that there may be a difference of opinion on this issue, but I hope that the Government's approach is right in principle and practicable in its application. That is my belief, but clearly the House will wish to consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Is it the Government's intention that people suspected of being involved in drug smuggling should be included in the category of international terrorism? No doubt there are strong links between those involved in drug smuggling and international terrorism. Many people—I would be one of them— would describe international drug smuggling as a form of terrorism because it cuts to the root of every community and some nations' ability to rule. If that did not occur to the Government when drawing up the rules, as my hon. Friend develops the application of the rules, will he consider whether they should embrace drug peddlers?

Mr. Hogg: I commend to my hon. Friend the text of paragraph 3.2 of the code of practice. A narrow meaning is there given to the word "terrorism". That narrow

meaning derives from section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. It is defined thus:
'Terrorism' means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear.
The proper answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) is that one must determine the primary purpose behind the offence. If it is drug smuggling, it is not a terrorist offence, even though by a process of seepage it may ultimately benefit a terrorist organisation. If the primary purpose and character of the offence being investigated is terrorism, the exclusion or inclusion applies. One must ask, "What is the purpose or character of the offence being investigated?
I make a final point to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, and it is relevant to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds. The effect of a failure to comply with the code or rules is not fatal to the prosecution, nor should it result in the interviewing officer facing criminal proceedings. Either it could constitute a disciplinary offence, or it could trigger the exercise of a discretion by the trial judge to exclude all or part of the evidence. In the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, the discretion would not be exercised in favour of the defendant.
I have spoken for longer than I intended because a number of specific and technical questions have been asked. I hope that the House will forgive me for having spoken at such length. I intended briefly to introduce the code and to reply later to the specific questions asked by hon. Members.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Labour Members welcome the introduction of the code of practice, which should lead to better protection for the suspect and the provision of an accurate record of events during police interrogation. I agree with the Minister that the entire investigation should be taped. I hope that he will agree that problems would arise if, for example, an interview of a terrorist were to be partially taped.
Although we agree with the general principle of the order, a number of questions need clarification and we have some concerns. Our first concern, which the Minister rightly foresaw, is about the exemptions in the proposals. Interviews of suspects held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 or section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 will not be recorded. I did not find the Minister's remarks on that matter very reassuring, and the points made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) about the difficulties of interpreting paragraph 3.2 of the guidelines were valid. It will be difficult to prejudge the intentions behind a crime in the way that the Minister suggested.
One point of hope arose from the Minister's remarks. He said that the guidelines will include those exemptions at least for the moment. That perhaps implies that the Government have an open mind on the issue, but I should have thought that if the Minister was seriously considering the matter he would make an announcement about possible field trials if that is why the exemptions are not being included at present.
Suspects questioned under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 are held under


draconian powers. They give much scope for abuse, yet the Minister said that suspects will have fewer safeguards. Suspects held under the Act are held for longer than other suspects and can be denied access to legal advice for 48 instead of 36 hours under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. If the arrest and detention powers are exceptional, Labour Members would argue that the safeguards should be more, not less, stringent.
If the Minister is concerned about the sensitive nature of information likely to be contained in the interview of a suspect held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, surely measures could be taken to protect that information other than by denying a safeguard on a blanket basis. As hon. Members who are legal practitioners said—they are always keen to speak in these debates—tape recordings will merely be a more efficient method of note taking. Surely there is more need for true and accurate records when problems arise under the Prevention of Terrorism Act than when they arise in normal trials. The Minister should have acknowledged that if there is discussion about the validity of interrogations difficulties may arise. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that difficulties in the Birmingham Six and the Guildford pub bombing trials might not have arisen if there been tape-recorded interviews.
As well as the points of principle, there are practical but perhaps minor points that I hope the Minister will consider. One of the practical problems with the guidelines is the provisions for deaf people who are being interviewed and interrogated by the police.
We have been approached by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf, which is concerned about some of the implications for deaf people. Reading paragraph 4.4 of the guidelines, I can see potential problems. The RNID is particularly concerned about two matters. First, the profoundly deaf generally use sign language, and the RNID is concerned that there should be a proper recording of what the deaf person has said or communicated. Therefore, it is recommending that such interviews should be videotaped rather than tape recorded. Has the Minister considered that aspect, as videos are being considered for other purposes? We discussed the point in the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill.
In paragraph 4.2c. there is a requirement that any persons in the room during the interview should identify themselves, so any sign language interpreter would be required to do the same. The RNID recommends that the person be required to state the degree of his qualification, so that the suspect, or his or her representative, will have the opportunity to request a more qualified interpreter, should that be found necessary. There are many letters of qualification for interpreters, and, like anyone else, deaf people should have full confidence that what they are saying is being interpreted correctly.
Will the Minister consider whether the latest equipment for deaf people could be adapted for this purpose? All hon. Members have seen my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) use the technical magic box to read what is being said almost as soon as it is said. He can follow the proceedings of the House, and I wonder whether such equipment could be used when deaf people are being interrogated and interviewed by the police.
There are concerns, some of which relate to the access of solicitors to the taped interviews. Solicitors should be allowed to hear an interview or part of an interview that has taken place before they have had a chance to advise the client. For the solicitor and for the accused, it may be extremely important that the solicitor knows exactly what has taken place before his or her arrival and the advice of the solicitor may be dependent on hearing what has gone on. If tape recordings exist, it would seem sensible to allow solicitors access to them. There may be occasions when that would not be possible or practical—for example, if there were a kidnapping inquiry, or somebody's life was thought to be at risk if the interrogation did not continue swiftly. In those circumstances, it would be foolish to insist on the solicitor's right to hear the tape taking precedence over anything else. However, the norm should be established that solicitors should have access unless there are good reasons to the contrary.
Has the Minister considered allowing solicitors to take their own tape recorders into interviews? Obviously, solicitors will take notes, but if the proposed new method is to be used for the police, it could also be used by solicitors. That might increase confidence in the system and reduce requests for access to tapes later—a point that concerns the Minister.
The code does not allow access to the tape recording of interviews where the case is not proceeded with, or charges are dropped. I hope that the Minister will clarify why he does not intend to provide such access. It is important that he does so, because it might be useful to have a record, especially if allegations were made later about the conduct of the police during that interrogation. We also want to know what provisions there might be for the destruction of any tape recordings that are made when the suspect has been released or the charges withdrawn. I hope that; the Minister will be able to clarify these important points.
Field studies have shown that requests for full transcripts are infrequent, and, generally, the provision of a summary is sufficient for both sides, although there has to be agreement between both sides, because it is important that the defence and the prosecution agree the contents of any summary and that the drafting of such a summary is accurate. The police will have responsibility for that. What training will be provided to ensure that police officers required to carry out that aspect will have appropriate skills? The document—for example, in paragraph 4.5—sets out various points at which the police may take certain action. I do not quibble with the fact that there will have to be some discretion, but if there is discretion, there has to be training and there has to be some mechanism to ensure uniformity in the operation of these provisions.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be full monitoring of the procedures once they are introduced, including the provisions in paragraph 3.3, which deal with the failure of equipment or the non-availability of suitable rooms. I hope that where such problems happen too frequently, there will be an examination and an investigation as I hope that there will be of any trend towards more interviews taking place outside police stations, with the result that they are not covered by these rules.
All these are significant difficulties. If the new rules are to operate properly, to improve the situation and give proper protection for the defence, they must be carefully


monitored and we have to make sure that there are no loopholes that could undermine the intention behind the new rules.
I understand that the defence is to be charged— probably £5—for the acquisition of any transcript. Perhaps the Minister can explain the reasoning behind that decision, because it is part of the prosecution evidence. Moreover, in requesting a full transcript, I understand that the defence is required to notify the prosecution that it has done so. If the defence does that, it will be informing the prosecution that it intends to challenge the interrogation in some way, thus disclosing part, at least, of its case. That breaks with the principle that the prosecution has to prove its case and the defence need not show its case.
What the Minister has said today will take us somewhat further and we welcome the general direction in which he is going. I have raised some important points with the Minister, and I hope that he will consider them before the full introduction of tape recording of interviews. I hope, too, that the Minister will think clearly about the exemptions that he is creating, because they will cause many difficulties. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he has reconsidered those points and that he will accept what I have said about the need for careful monitoring if the system is to work successfully.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am one of those legal practitioners who are keen to contribute to this debate because, since I first became a Member of the House, I have been asking Governments to introduce the sensible measure of tape recording interviews with suspects. I have re-read some speeches on this subject that are now 14 years old and I am pleased that I will be relieved of the burden of pressing this particular campaign so that I can consider others.
The wonder is that it has taken so long to introduce tape-recorded interviews. In June 1972 the Criminal Law Revision Committee recommended an experiment on the feasibility of such recordings. It was not until February 1975 that a committee was set up to consider the matter and it took nearly two years to decide what everybody knew—that it was perfectly feasible to have a tape recording experiment. In July 1977 the matter was relegated to a Royal Commission. The rest is history, but I believe that my congratulations to the Government should also include special congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), who gave the process a big kick forward when he was Home Secretary.
I support the tape recording of interviews with suspects because I believe that that one measure, possibly more than any other, will improve the procedures of our criminal trials. It will ensure that more of the guilty are convicted and that fewer of the innocent are dragged through an unnecessary criminal trial only to be acquitted.
With tape recordings there will be less opportunity for the police to allege, falsely, a confession and there will be less opportunity for an accused person to allege, falsely, policy dishonesty. Because police officers will be less often challenged as liars and less often thought to be dishonest, their standing in the community will rise and so will their morale. It will be easier to recruit the best people to the

police service. Fewer police officers will be tempted to be dishonest once we have nation-wide tape-recorded interviews and, as we know corruption often follows from dishonesty, in future years our police force will be even less corrupt and much more honest than some of the allegations that are made daily in our courts would suggest.
If the circumstances surrounding the making of a statement were less open to criticism, more people would plead guilty and more would feel obliged to shorten the length of their criminal trial. Therefore, it would take less time to try a case and trials would come on sooner after arrest. Witnesses' memories would have less time to fade and their evidence would become more reliable—fewer acquittals would occur as a result of that alone.
In short, crime will become easier to fight because the conviction of the guilty will become more certain and, therefore, there will be a stronger deterrent to crime. The money that is saved by shortening the process of our criminal procedures will more than outweigh the present costs of the system, without tape recording.
Since I first spoke about this matter, we have had the benefit of the field test by the Home Office research planning unit. That unit has published a report in the names of Carole Willis, John McLeod and Peter Naish. It is important to place on record the conclusions, to date, that have been drawn from the field tests throughout Britain. First, a higher proportion of suspects have become the subject of court proceedings. That, combined with the greater success of the police in bringing people to trial, is likely to mean that the process of convicting the guilty will become more efficient.
Secondly, there is no evidence that the police have been avoiding the use of tape recorders. On the contrary, the report suggests that they are more likely to carry out interviews at police stations which have them. That is welcome news to those of us who were once worried that the police would be the biggest obstacle in the way of tape-recorded interviews.
Thirdly, tape-recorded interviews tend to be shorter and there will be considerable benefits as a result of the police time that is saved.
Fourthly, there has been an increase in the number of admissions and confessions—some of us expected that. However, I understand from the figures that have been bandied about that, in the test case areas, the increase in guilty pleas is as low as 2 per cent. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether that is the definitive figure because 2 per cent. seems to be a much lower increase in the number of admissions and confessions than we had, I think, expected.
The fifth conclusion of the unit is that more information is vouchsafed by suspects about other offences they have committed. Sixthly, suspects that are not charged are released more quickly. Those of us who are concerned about the civil liberties of the individual innocent of a crime will greatly welcome that.
The seventh conclusion is that there has been no decrease in the quantity or quality of the information obtained from suspects. The opposite is true and there has been an overall improvement in the information gleaned from suspects. Its eighth conclusion is that there has been a reduction in the police time spent on such interviews; and, finally, there has been a small reduction in the average length of trials at both the higher and lower courts, presumably because there have been fewer challenges to


the truth of such interviews. In future, challenges will be likely to relate more to the interpretation of the words used in the interview rather than to the dishonesty of the police officers taking part in it.
The conclusions of the Home Office research planning unit amply justify the Government's actions and the hopes with which those of us who pressed for tape-recorded interviews imbued the debate.
May I conclude by asking the Minister some questions and expressing two thoughts. What are the anticipated nation-wide costs of the installation of tape recorders in major police stations? What savings does the Minister anticipate from the shortening of criminal trials, given the considerable reduction in criminal trial expenses that will result? What action is being taken towards the next step, video-recorded interviews? I believe that one can now buy a video tape recording unit for about the same cost as the audio tape recording machines were themselves when we originally discussed this matter. As the price plummets, it must become more feasible and more sensible—even as a cost-cutting exercise—for police stations to have a video recording facility.
In common with other hon. Members, I have some doubts about why the benefits that would flow from tape-recorded interviews should be denied to those who are charged with or bring charges of terrorist offences. Has my hon. Friend's conclusion been reached on the advice of the Northern Ireland police and prosecution authorities or solely on the advice of the police? Upon what basis has my hon. Friend reached his conclusion? If that basis is not that convincing, I hope that he will reconsider his attitude towards future terrorist interviews.
My one regret is that we did not get all this moving earlier. If we had done so, there would have been less pressure to interfere with the established procedures of our criminal trials. Perhaps people would have been less worried about the abolition of the peremptory challenge of jurymen, and less desirous of the need to increase sentences by appealing to the Court of Appeal. One could go through a gamut of actions—almost panic-stricken actions—that the Government have taken to try to end the increase in crime. They have interfered with the traditional procedures of our criminal trials, yet they have been broadly resisted by those who know most about the functioning of our criminal system as a result of practising in the courts.
Perhaps the success so far—and, I hope, the continued success—of tape-recorded interviews will have this one effect: that it will slow down any movement that my right hon. and hon. Friends may think they observe in the country to interfere with the traditional right to silence. As the House may know, I am not opposed to some limited interference with that right, but I hedge that with this qualification: before we do anything as drastic as that, we should see whether the procedures that my hon. Friend is introducing with this measure are successful. If they are, we need not disturb the traditional procedures which have served this country so well over many years.
I end by offering my congratulations, thanks and best wishes to my hon. Friend for the success of this measure.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I shall follow on from where the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) left off. I, too, have an interest in

these matters. It occurs to me that there is no rhyme, reason or logic about excluding one type of criminal trial from taping.
A terrorist offence in Northern Ireland or in the United Kingdom is given a criminal trial. When someone is accused of a terrorist offence, the defence is served with all the documents relating to the interviews, usually in the form of contemporaneous notes. In some cases, nothing is said in an interview; in others, a great deal is said. If the Minister implied in answer to my intervention that, in the past few years, when interviews have been taped, they have been carefully and selectively edited, that is an appalling admission. Surely he did not mean that. If not, why should things change merely because the method of recording has changed from contemporaneous notes to tape? Perhaps the Minister will say a little bit more about that in due course.
I want to make one or two points of a practical nature. My first is a cri de coeur about the tapes themselves. There was recently a move to change the sort of tape that is used. I pray that that will not happen. The tapes that were used in the experiments were the sort that can be put in a Walkman or a car radio. Sometimes interviews are several hours long and, having to travel long distances to court, many a lawyer has done so listening to the tape of an interview, perhaps looking for some discrepancy between it and the summary that he or she has been given. Perhaps the client has said that he did not imply this or that, and gave an explanation. If an interview lasts for three hours, it takes three hours to listen to it—a practical point.
Sometimes, when tapes are required to clarify a point, and they are of the type that can be used in Walkman sets or car radios, prosecution and defence counsel can sit in the car park and play the relevant part of the tape, thereby eliminating the need for an adjournment and speeding up matters. So I pray that the Home Office will see sanity and stick to the current sort of tape.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton also referred to my second point. Trial surveys have shown that the length of interviews decreased when tape recording was used naturally and logically. When a contemporaneous note is written down, it takes an awfully long time to complete. Asking questions and receiving answers orally is naturally quicker. But another problem has arisen; it is admirably demonstrated if one listens to the tape of an interview. I refer to the number of superfluous questions which are asked in the course of an interview. A number of senior police officers have told me that the police service would like a little assistance with the costs of training detective officers in the methods and procedures of using tape. I hope the Minister will assure the police authorities that such training will be available and that its costs will be met. Training a police officer to ask questions quickly saves a considerable amount of time: the interviews become succinct and to the point. Most cases are simple and straightforward, and, with a little teaching, considerable savings can be made.
I want to draw one more matter to the Minister's attention. I have already mentioned it to him privately and warned him that I would do so again tonight. Following the decision in the case of Alladyce which, when there is a breach of the code, leaves discretion to the judge under section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, will the Minister consider the wording of present codes, particularly as they relate to interviewing techniques?
It is becoming apparent that, while we have sought to cure one great ill—allegations and counter-allegations about interviews—another has begun to develop. It is nicknamed "the Scotch allegation", because it first broke out in Scotland, where they were a little ahead of us in interviewing techniques. I refer to the supposed confession, made either at the moment of an arrest, or on the way to the police station, or in conversation in the police station before formal interview. As the code is drafted, any interview in a police station must be recorded either by contemporaneous notes, which the defendant is shown and asked to sign, or by way of tape under the new code. It never ceases to amaze me that, when a conversation has taken place and been recorded in a police officer's notebook as soon as he reaches the police station, and it is said to contain some confession, it is beyond the wit and wisdom of police officers to present that written record to the suspect, to tell him that that was what he had said in the car, and to ask him to sign it. That would at least go halfway to overcoming what are increasingly becoming time-consuming arguments in the courts. Will the Minister take that on board? There is clearly a loophole in the current code of practice. It could easily be tidied up, and all of us would benefit from that in the long term.
It has often been said that tape recording of interviews will go a long way to eliminating the courtroom banter and barrage of allegation and counter-allegation about what has been said. This has been a long time in coming. Let us hope the order will be brought into effect quickly and that, throughout the length and breadth of the country, tape recording will become the norm rather than the exception.

Sir Giles Shaw: I join other hon. Members in broadly welcoming the thrust of the code of practice and the order. I want to say two things about them, one of which my hon. Friend the Minister will understand, knowing of my previous interest in this matter.
I had hoped that the process would be relatively quick once the system was established and tested and the Government had made up their mind, as I had little doubt they would. I am rather sorry that my hon. Friend has told us that it will take another five years before the new system is properly distributed throughout the police service. I ask him to think again about that. Why will it take another five years? There are fewer stations now. Custody stations have been established, and that must have reduced the potential number of interview centres. The Crown Prosecution Service has also been established. Why should this take so long if the change is funded? Surely my hon. Friend, probably aided and abetted by the Lord Chancellor, will be most anxious to provide additional funds so that the courts' time is not wasted and we enjoy the efficiency that I am sure the new system will produce.
My second point has to do with exemption. I am not entirely happy with what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said was the reason for it. We have had real benefits from moving to tape recording. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) was right to list them and the conclusions of the test area panel that was set up by the Home Office.
Northern Ireland was not one of those test areas—no doubt for fairly good reasons. It is saddening that there should be further disparity between the police and court procedures that are available in the Province and those that are available in other major centres of significant criminal activity. The more that such disparities exist, the less welcome they will be to many people who believe strongly that the rule of law is the way to fight terrorism and that it is the only method by which to argue the popular case against terrorism, even in the Province of Northern Ireland.
I hope that, as my hon. Friend the Minister has previously suggested—a matter to which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) referred—he will tell the House that the matter will be subject to review. The fewer the disparities that exist, the greater will be the chance for a system of common justice and common police practice throughout the United Kingdom. That will be in the best interests not only of the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom, but of the reputation and probity of the police force.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Is it not ironic that, following Lord Justice Bennetts investigations at Castlereagh and Armagh holding centres, he recommended that interrogations should be videotaped and tape recorded? Now we find that despite that recommendation what will happen in the north of Ireland will derogate from what is happening elsewhere.

Sir Giles Shaw: I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take due note of that intervention. It is eloquent evidence to be weighed in the balance when he makes his decision.
The overall benefit of what my hon. Friend has offered the House is considerable and I congratulate him on bringing in the order.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am aware that there is pressure of time on all of us, so I shall confine myself to one point. A debate on the Northern Ireland order will follow in the next Session of Parliament, but it is essential that we consider the matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and by almost all other hon. Members who have spoken.
I refer to the exclusion of terrorist trials from the order, which is of great import. Where separate series of legislation operate in the north of Ireland and in England and Wales, there is bound to be an overlap. There can never be a clear distinction between, on the one hand, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and, on the other hand, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. They will, of necessity, overlap and it is impossible to make a clear distinction between them. Serious problems will arise after people have been apprehended under the emergency legislation or the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. We shall have a difficult time because of that.
The central point, which has been made ably by other hon. Members, is that the protection of this code of conduct is being denied to those who need it most—those who are arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act or the Prevention of


Terrorism Act, which represent the greatest derogation from the normal legal practices in the rest of western Europe.
It is essential that we should consider those matters briefly and I ask the Minister to do so. I hope that if he has discussions with his Northern Ireland counterparts he will at least consider that point.
In Northern Ireland 90 per cent. of the incidents of stop and search take place under emergency legislation. Sixty per cent. of detention, questioning and custody cases take place under the emergency legislation. Well over 50 per cent. of cases involving the search of premises take place under the emergency legislation. We have only to look at the problems that arise from the interrogation of suspects and at Lord Justice Bennetfs report and the millions of pounds that have been paid in compensation to see the need for such protection.
The explanatory document which accompanied the Northern Ireland order says:
The police are under a duty to observe these codes and non-compliance will constitute a disciplinary offence.
It would not be stretching it too far or using poetic licence to say that under the emergency legislation the police are not under a duty to observe those codes, and non-compliance would not constitute a disciplinary offence. Human nature being what it is, there must surely be a tremendous temptation to any police service not to abide by the highest rules and codes of conduct by which they would operate under a different piece of legislation. The police are presented with a choice between wearing two hats—whether to be the good cop when pursuing a case under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or a not-so-good cop when working under the emergency legislation. That is the difficulty that the police face. Human nature being what it is, if a policeman is not under a duty to observe the codes and if non-compliance is not a disciplinary offence, he may not obey them and he may act differently in those two situations.
Let me deal with another matter and put it into the practical terms of Northern Irish life. If a person sitting here stole £1 million he would be dealt with under a different piece of legislation from a young boy of 16 years of age who was suspected—nothing more—of complicity in an offence that came within the terms of the emergency legislation. That young boy would not have the benefit of the codes of practice that the man sitting here would. That cannot be right. That does nothing for the difficult situations in which the police have to operate. It does nothing for the person who has been arrested and interrogated. Nor does it help the position of the courts. Without parity between the two sections of legislation there could be two different approaches, not just by the police service but by the court service, and that would be dangerous.
My last point highlights a difficulty and an anomaly. One of the greatest problems in Northern Ireland at present is a type of Mafia racketeering. That has now reached endemic proportions and it is difficult to say whether it is a criminal offence to be dealt with under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or whether it occurs within a paramilitary organisation and should be dealt with under the emergency legislation. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to make such a distinction. Living, as I do, close to the areas where it takes place, I know that there is no known way in which that distinction can properly be made.
If I were a racketeer making millions of pounds a year, as some of those people do, not connected in any way with any paramilitary group, but acting for my own greed, I would have the protection of the codes. In a different set of circumstances, that protection would not apply. That will create a difficult, if not impossible, situation for the police, the courts and everybody else who has to deal with the situation. I hope that in the intervening period the Minister will impress upon his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office that if we are not to make a nonsense of this in Northern Ireland, we should have a statutory code of practice for every type of offence.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I welcome the code of practice. It is an important part of the original Act. I shall make three short important points. First, I shall reiterate my concern about the identification of a terrorist act. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned racketeering. Racketeering, and drug trafficking, which is another form of racketeering, can be part of a terrorist activity. Terrible complications will arise from the form of words used in the code of practice. I, like others, ask my hon. Friend the Minister to continue to include that in his review.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the original Act placed considerable additional burdens on our police force and the order establishes further the operations of that Act. The taping of entire interviews, even if it reduces the length of interviews or the time that police officers spend in interviews, the provision of transcripts where necessary, the provision of summaries, the training that will be required and the supervision necessary to ensure that the code is complied with, will all place considerable extra work on our police forces.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the practice will be phased in over five years, hoping that it will be standard practice in 1991. However, it is expected to be used to some extent by all police forces by the end of this year. He mentioned five test areas where the practice is presently being carried out. I wonder whether one of those is within the Sussex police force area. As he will be aware, the Sussex police force is under considerable strain. In a recent written answer he mentioned that the Sussex police force had requested seven additional officers in the current year. He inadvertently misled the House because the request was for 27. The request for seven was a hangover from last year and the force requested an additional 20 this year. It could be said that the Sussex police force is now 27 officers under strength.
The difficulties it faced were well illustrated by the report of the chief constable for Surrey on violence in rural areas. Sadly, the report has not been available to the House. For some reason it has been suppressed. The chief constable has been instructed not to publish it or make it available. My hon. Friend the Minister should rescind that instruction because the report would be of great interest to many hon. Members.

Mr. Michael Marshall: My hon. Friend knows that he speaks for all Sussex Members in outlining the difficulties. For example, at the recent mayor-making ceremony in Arundel we were unable to have any traffic control by policemen for the parade of Scouts, Brownies and other worthies because the police were being diverted to other duties due to shortages.

Mr. Rathbone: Absolutely. Some of those police will be operating the provisions of the Act and it is important that they should do so. That is why I raised that point.
I plead with my hon. Friend the Minister to reconsider the question of terrorism and to look into the application of the Act by the police and the burdens that will fall on them. Once again, I plead with him to increase the Sussex police force by the number requested.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I join in the welcome that has been given to the code. The sooner universal tape recording is available, the better. I agree with the hon. Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) who said that five years is an unnecessarily long time for the introduction of tape recording throughout all police areas.
I shall begin with two practical points. First, the tape recordings appear to be causing no real difficulties in the courts. However, the summaries are causing difficulties. There have been cases in which issue has been taken as to the accuracy of the summary as a reflection of the gist of the tape recording, or at least its most relevant parts. There is a need for officers to be trained in pre-cising tape recordings. Anybody who has tried their hand at sub-editing knows that it is extremely difficult to sub-edit prose. To sub-edit a long and often boring recording of question and answer is a difficult task. Officers need special training to ensure that court time and their own time is not wasted in controversies as to the accuracy of the summary.
Secondly—this is another practical point and a simple one—I wish to put in a plea that the playback equipment should be standard throughout all police force areas. I understand that, largely, that will be so but that there are a minority of areas using a different form of playback equipment. If lawyers at all levels are to have a fair chance of considering in full the tape recordings before trial, they will have to purchase equipment that will play back the recordings in a way that will make them easy to hear. The nature of the tapes means that on some ordinary commercial tape recorders it is not always easy to hear clearly the recording of the interview because of the second track that can intervene in a rather disturbing way. Therefore, solicitors' offices and barristers' chambers will have to buy the appropriate equipment. In the provinces and in London, barrister' chambers and solicitors' offices may be dealing with numerous police areas and it is important that there should be standard equipment in use.
I shall deal with the exceptions. On section 1 of the Official Secrets Act, I am sure that the Minister will recall the Cyprus spy trial. It was the longest spy trial there has ever been in England and Wales. The main issue was the accuracy and fairness of alleged confessions obtained by military police. If for security reasons edited summaries had been produced, if there had been tape recordings, there would have been a failsafe. The judge would have been able to hear the tape recordings to ensure that the summary was accurate. I should have thought that in circumstances such as that a great deal of time could be saved and, on balance, the public interest would be served if a tape recording was available.
In relation to terrorist offences I suggest that there is an even more overwhelming argument for the use of tape recordings. With the Brighton bombing, the Guildford pub bombing and other less celebrated cases in the general area of terrorism there have been challenges to the

accuracy and fairness of interviews carried out. Convictions have rested substantially upon the view taken by a jury of interviews that were not tape recorded. Much of the continuing controversy in relation to at least three terrorist cases is dependent largely upon the view taken of police interviews. Necessarily, the interviews will be recorded contemporaneously in any event. It may be that editing will later be carried out as to what goes before the jury. However, it is not for the police to decide what it is in the public interest to edit. Now that we have an independent prosecution service and serious cases are handled at a senior level, surely there is an overwhelming argument for the entire interview to be recorded and for the Crown Prosecution Service, if anyone, to decide the nature of any editing that should take place.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: It is certainly not for the police to edit but it could well be up to the police to exclude material because of evidential factors in a terrorist issue.

Mr. Carlile: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is not for the police to make them. It is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to make them.
If it is possible to devise a means whereby we can be sure of what was said, we should employ that means. We have that means. It is relatively inexpensive and it is being introduced in relation to all other offences, except terrorist offences and offences under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act. There is a strong logical argument for applying the same standards to the most serious offences. I ask the Minister to think again over the next few months while the tape recording equipment is being introduced into the vast majority of police stations. I suspect that the judges would greatly welcome the introduction of tape recordings in relation to all offences and that the public interest would be served thereby.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I too welcome the measure because it honours the undertaking given to those of us who soldiered in the vineyards of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Committee. I also welcome it because it is a case in which technology goes to the aid of justice. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) for the campaign that he and others fought for the measure to be introduced. I freely concede that many police officers were originally sceptical about it, but they have been convinced by the practical experiments that have taken place. It is now overdue that we should make the practice universally available. I associate myself with the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) in asking whether the process must take five years. I suspect that I know some of the answers and I shall allude to a couple of them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am responsible for the confusion. It is my fault and I apologise. We expect the practice to be in place by the end of 1991, five years from the beginning of 1986.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. His comment coincides with my inevitably limited experience of this matter. The police service is installing the equipment as rapidly as it can in most parts of the country and, for the most part, it has become an enthusiast in doing so.
The House should be under no illusions that, although there is much benefit for the system of justice and for the police service, the measure lays new burdens upon the police. I make no apology for saying to the House that we are asking police officers to make available facilities that, in many cases, they do not have. In many of our bridewells, suitable rooms are not available and it is an expensive and difficult business to provide them when the police have many other priorities. We ask the police to do a great deal in dealing with burglary and rape. These additions will inevitably take police officers off the beat. They will spend less time interviewing, whether or not the interviews are recorded—that is the gain—but no one should be under any illusions that it is not an additional burden upon the police service.
All of the requirements of the code enter at once into the police discipline code and any infraction can be used to bring a police officer before his senior officer. Many of the matters involved are fairly technical. The police must be properly trained, not only to use the equipment, but to make the difficult summaries. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) was right when he said how difficult it is to take the unexpurgated language contained in an audio recording and translate it into a summary that will be acceptable to people with the perception of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. However well the police do the job, it will be challenged in many cases because it will be convenient for the defence to make that challenge. I want to underline what a difficult task we lay upon young police constables. They will be asked to do the job of translaling thousands of words of often extraneous and not totally audible matter into summaries that will satisfy a court of law.
The loading of the police service with paperwork is becoming a major problem. I am glad that the task forces set in motion by no less a body than the Audit Commission are now trying to reduce the paperwork in which the Metropolitan police are drowning. The west midlands force has made a good start in reducing the paperwork. The force orders of the Metropolitan police run to about 18,000 pages. I may need to be corrected; it is possibly 13,000 pages, but it is of that order of magnitude and police officers are supposed to operate within that environment. All that lays more problems upon them. They must have the necessary training and number of staff. Against that background, it is a bad time for the official side of the police negotiating board to be attacking the pay of the young police officers who will have to do the job.
I wish to conclude, as many other hon. Members have done, by addressing the extremely difficult problem of derogating from the code of practice in respect of terrorism and official secrets. I declare some interest in that matter as I have had some experience of police officers having to conduct interviews with terrorist suspects. I hope that hon. Members, particularly those who are not lawyers and do not practise in the criminal courts, are under no illusions about the difficulties of conducting an interview with a suspected terrorist, particularly one who may be a hardened practitioner who knows how to handle an interview, in some cases better than the police officer himself.
I hope that the House will be under no illusions about what it is really like to conduct an interview with an alleged rapist or with someone who has been charged with interfering with a child. We had a debate on that matter

some weeks ago. Police officers conducting such interviews about sexual molestation of children or the rape of women, and doing so on an audio recording, will find it an exceedingly difficult task. They already find it a difficult task, but reducing those interviews into a summary for a court of law is an exceedingly difficult task.
The Government have thought about the question of terrorism and have got it right in principle, but not in detail. A police officer, particularly a special branch or CID officer dealing with terrorist cases that cost lives, and perhaps experienced in the mutilations that arise from terrorist action, would be in breach of his duty if he permitted the tape recording to continue when he sees that, as a result of an interview, material would be available that would either exclude further intelligence that the police are pursuing or, if it were made available to the defence lawyers, could aid the very terrorist whom he is seeking to catch and convict.
I am totally opposed to dealing with the problem by editing the tape. That would make nonsense of everything that we are seeking to do, but it must be right in certain circumstances that a police officer can shut off the tape if it is beginning to trespass into those areas that could cause further loss of life. The Government are therefore right to derogate from the generality of the order in respect of terrorist offences. The same goes broadly for the Official Secrets Act, although I am sure that that point will be further debated when we come to the Official Secrets Act reform.
I find myself parting from the Government in respect of the exact method by which they have sought to define the matter that can be excluded from taping. It is too difficult for a police officer, as he proceeds with an interview, to have to decide whether the matter that he is pursuing is terrorism connected with Northern Ireland, international terrorism or domestic terrorism connected with the United Kingdom, in which case his interview must continue. It is to make too many different distinctions for many police officers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take further advice. He should examine further the definitions before he asks the police to practise them.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have only two minutes in which to respond to those who have spoken. I hope that the House will forgive me if my replies to individual hon. Members are not especially full.
Like other hon. Members, I do not like a disparity between classes of offence. However, having considered the matter carefully, and bearing in mind the views of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Northern Ireland Office, I am satisfied that we are right to make the derogation. We must recognise that the sort of information that becomes available in the course of an interview following a terrorist offence can do much to damage national security.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) talked about the deaf. As I am short of time, I shall respond quickly to the issues that she raised. The issue is covered in part by the fourth clause of the code. Deaf people have a right of access to an interpreter. I do not believe that it is necessary for the interpreter to state his or her qualifications, if only because a bad interpreter will be of


no use to anyone, not least to the police. Solicitors can use their own tape recorders when interviews take place, but I would not encourage the practice.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) that we believe that the net effect on police manpower will be beneficial. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) talked about interviews in cars. He has a point, and we shall consider it when amending code C. I undertake that we shall consider the arguments that he has advanced.
There are serious training considerations. There will be monitoring by the inspectorate. Monitoring, too, is a serious matter——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [22 July], put the Question.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) Order 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th July 1988, be approved.

Teachers' Pay and Conditions

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move,
That the Education (School Teachers' Pay and Conditions) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1055), dated 16th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be revoked.
The debate is about the implementation of the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. It is important to understand the background to the debate and to the order.
Last week, during our debates on the Education Reform Bill, we were told by the Minister of State that we were deliberately creating anxiety among teaching and non-teaching staffs about the Government's powers in relation to employment laws. It was asserted by the Minister that the Secretary of State would not contemplate reducing employment rights. As we understand the background to the order, we know how worthless such assurances are. The Secretary of State removed from teachers the most basic of employment rights, the right to bargain collectively with their employers. We would argue that the basic right to bargain collectively is an essential prerequisite of a healthy pluralist democracy.

Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I have only just started.

Mr. Knight: It is on the very point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Fatchett: Very well.

Mr. Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he can bargain collectively when not one Labour Member, apart from himself, is in the Chamber?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall continue with my speech. The intervention was not even worthy of the hon. Gentleman's standards.
To take away the right to bargain collectively—it is a right that has been exercised for many years by teachers and their organisations—is a damaging step away from democracy. When the Government give an assurance on employment rights, as they did last week, we must remember their record with the teachers and GCHQ, which tells us that their assurances have no meaning.
The Government have been condemned internationally for their action in removing collective bargaining rights from teachers. They were condemned by the International Labour Organisation, which concluded that the Government's actions were not in conformity with the fourth article of convention No. 98. The Government have rightly been condemned by the ILO and by international opinion because they have no regard for the democratic, industrial and employment rights of teachers. That is why we are debating the order.
We are unhappy about the order because of its genesis. We do not think that it tackles the major problems facing the teaching profession, but we shall not use the debate as an opportunity to negotiate on behalf of teachers. The Chamber is not a place for negotiation. The necessary negotiations between the employers and teachers' organisations should take place elsewhere, with a clear, defined and recognised role for Government. Because we


believe that the Chamber is not the place for wage negotiations, and because we believe that the right to bargain is an intrinsic right in a healthy democracy, an incoming Labour Government will restore collective bargaining rights to teachers and their organisations. As I have said, we shall not take the opportunity tonight of negotiating in detail the teachers' pay awards.
Can the Minister of State give the House and the teaching profession an indication of the progress that is being made in establishing collective bargaining rights for teachers? It would be interesting to hear the Minister respond positively and constructively to the ILO's decision. It would be interesting also if the Minister were to accept that the Government should feel embarrassed that an international organisation has so severely condemned the Government. It would be interesting, further, to hear the Minister dissociate herself from some of the comments which were made by some of her hon. Friends last week. When the ILO was mentioned, they found it a matter of some amusement and the opportunity to engage in ridicule. It would be useful if we were to hear the Minister show respect for the ILO and to give a sign to teachers and their organisations that the Government will restore to teachers the right of collective bargaining.
There are detailed criticisms that we would wish to make of the report and the Government's action in relation to it. The first criticism and major comment is directed to the sixth paragraph. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), with his keen interest and knowledge of these matters, will no doubt have read the report. He will be able to tell me that the first conclusion reached—a crucial conclusion—was
that teachers' morale is low. This is not only, nor perhaps principally, a matter of pay, though pay was at the heart of the industrial dispute and it would be foolish to imagine that since the 1987 pay increase it has ceased to be an issue.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and the Minister will recognise that without high morale and teacher commitment we shall not have high standards of performance and of education.
For the first time in Britain's history in the post-war period we have a Government who have presided over a reduction in education standards. If they are to make an improvement, and if our children are to be provided with the opportunities that they deserve, we shall need a teacher force with a high morale and a sense of commitment, and having the feeling that its professionalism and service are recognised by both society and the Government.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In responding to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), perhaps the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) missed the point. He is right to say, as the report does, that it may not be chiefly and principally a question of pay. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out its importance, but the principal reason why teachers' morale is low is surely the way in which they are treated by the Government. The principal act against teachers has been the removal, without any attempt to replace them, of their rights to negotiate pay and conditions. That is the Government s responsibility, whatever the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth) may snigger about.

Mr. James Pawsey: rose——

Mr. Fatchett: No, I cannot allow a series of interventions on that point.
I agree with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr.Ashdown). I was making the point——

Mr. Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not agree with me that there is a substantial difference between a giggle and a cheerful smile? I was trying to give the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr.Fatchett) an encouraging smile, because I agree with much of what he says. That was completely misinterpreted by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Mr. Fatchett.

Mr. Fatchett: Sometimes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can understand your burdens in carrying out your office.
The hon. Member for Yeovil made an effective point. He will recall that my opening remarks referred to the background to the order, which was the Government's summary action in taking away the basic rights of teachers and their organisations to collective bargaining. That is crucial to the collapse in teachers' morale. For nine years, the Government have taken every available opportunity to undermine teachers' professionalism and status.
Tonight, the Minister needs to reassure the teaching force that she recognises that collapse of morale, that the Government are prepared to take action that will deal with it, and that they are prepared, as part of that action, to restore collective bargaining rights. Until the Government do that, as anybody with experience of education and of what is happening in our schools will know, teachers' morale will stay low. The Government's decision to take away their collective bargaining rights was seen by teachers as being central to the esteem in which the Government themselves hold the teaching profession. The report does not relate to that collapse of morale sufficiently, in terms of taking any action to restore it— although it is right to detect it.
There is clear and growing evidence that we are faced with recruitment and shortage problems. There is evidence also that the Government have little idea as to how they are to deliver the national curriculum or of how many teachers they will need for that purpose. The hon. Member for Yeovil may recall that on a number of occasions in Standing Committee we asked whether the Government were prepared to give figures of the number of teachers needed to deliver the national curriculum. First, we were told that there were some mysterious but brilliant calculations on the back of a fag packet in the DES. We now realise that it was probably written on the back of the hon. Member for Dartford, (Mr. Dunn). Later we were told that by the end of this year the Government would provide figures, but I suspect that when we reach the end of this year they will have no more idea then than they have now of how many teachers will be required. If they have, they will not publish those figures, because that would reveal the difficulties of staffing and recruitment that they face.
There is worrying evidence in the interim report which a sensible Government concerned about education standards would act upon. The following point is made on page 29:
We judge that overall the numbers recruited were just about adequate in 1987–88, but there are already signs that recruitment is becoming more difficult.
Within 48 hours of the report s publication, figures from the teacher training clearing house revealed a 17 per cent.


drop in the number of applicants for mathematics teacher training, a 20 per cent. fall in physics applicants, and an 18 per cent. decline in geography applicants. Those are three crucial subjects forming part of the national curriculum, and all are suffering from a major recruitment shortfall. Again, there is no evidence from the Government, although all the warning signs are to be found in the interim report, that they have a recruitment strategy.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is being very unjust. Under this Government there has been a tremendous improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio over the past nine years.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Nonsense.

Mr. Greenway: It is absurd to say that that is nonsense. The pupil-teacher ratio has improved substantially.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is being complacent if he relies on just one set of statistics. Conservative Members know that the crucial point is that we shall face acute shortages of teachers in key subjects and that we are already facing a recruitment shortfall. Until the Government deal with those problems, there will be difficulty in delivering high quality education to our youngsters. The hon. Gentleman ought not to be complacent about that difficulty.

Mr. Flannery: What has been said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) is partially true, but it is not in any way due to the present Government. The number of primary pupils dropped, while the numbers in the secondary sector, where there were plenty of teachers, increased—so much so that the present Government could not let them all enter universities, for example. The better pupil-teacher ratio to which the hon. Gentleman refers existed when the Government came to office. It was merely a development of the circumstances that then obtained. Ever since, there have been fewer teachers, and there is now a shortage and worse pupil-teacher ratios.

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend is right in his analysis that there was a demographic decline in terms of student numbers so that the pupil-teacher ratio improved. That occurred not because of the Government's actions—over their nine years in office they have cut the real level of spending per child—but because local authorities have increased their expenditure in real terms, though often threatened with penalties and rate capping by the Government for doing so.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose——

Mr. Fatchett: I cannot give way because I must make progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that one or two other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.
There are two major criticisms of the Government and their reaction to the teaching profession. First, they have no strategy for dealing with the collapse in morale. Secondly, they have no strategy for dealing with recruitment and staff shortages. Until the Government understand those problems and devise a strategy, education standards will continue to decline. It is easy enough for the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth to

snigger, but for those youngsters who are suffering under that decline in education standards brought about by Conservative Members there is no second chance. Life provides only one chance in terms of education. The Government are not investing in youngsters, to give them a full range of opportunities. There is need for a strategy and to ensure that teachers enjoy a status and salaries that befit their professionalism and contribution to society.
I remind the Minister that all the evidence shows that it was because of the teachers' contribution that pupils were able this year to complete their GCSE work. If she will talk to youngsters throughout the country, and will study the analysis by the National Association of Head Teachers published yesterday, she will reach the conclusion that it was teachers doing more than was expected of them contractually that kept the GCSE on the road. It would have been useful if the Government, financially and in other ways, had made a contribution to GCSE similar to that made by hundreds of thousands of teachers. The simple fact is that teachers have kept it alive while the Government have under-resourced it and other parts of our education system.
Typical of that under-resourcing is the limitation that the Government have imposed on the interim advisory committee report. Page 2 of the report comments that the limitation to £300 million was a recommendation that the committee found excessively limiting. The Government, however, have taken that limitation a stage further. The fact that the recommendations produced a figure above £300 million has given them an opportunity to impose, via the back door, further cuts on local education authorities. By agreeing not to fund the full amount of the teachers' pay increase, they will ensure that we lose both teachers and other resources that are necessary in the classroom.
There are parallels in the Health Service relating to the nurses' pay increase and the treatment of non-medical staff. The Government have behaved in the same way throughout the public sector. Local education authorities will have to foot part of the bill, and in doing so they must lose teachers or resources. The Government should have provided the additional money asked for in the report: that would have been an indication of their commitment to good education for our youngsters.
We are debating this order because we feel that the Government must provide some hope for teachers that their professionalism will be recognised. So far they have not provided that hope, and there is no indication that they will do so. We wanted the debate also so that we could demand that teachers be given the right that belongs to millions of other workers to bargain collectively with their employers. We should be mature enough, as a society and as a democracy, to allow our teachers and their employers —with a role for Government—to negotiate their pay and conditions. Until that happens, it is a sad day for Parliament and for democracy when we have to debate such an order in this way.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I suppose that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) got at least one thing right: the order arises from the work of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. The committee was set up in July 1987, in accordance with the requirement of the Teachers' Pay and


Conditions Act 1987. Its members were chosen from a variety of backgrounds, with a correspondingly wide spectrum of experience. The result was a generally well-balanced and independently minded body which was recognised by all shades of opinion.
In October 1987 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave the committee a remit setting out certain detailed issues which he asked it to consider. Among those issues were changes in pay levels and allowances, and possible modifications to salary differentials and teachers' duties. It is true that the remit also included a financial limit of £300 million. That constraint, however, provided an important discipline for the committee's work, and was set against a background of concern about the general level of pay increases and the inflationary pressures that might be created. That concern has proved justified, and there remains a general need for lower pay settlements throughout the economy.
The committee proceeded to consult fully with local authority associations, teachers' unions and bodies representing the interests of voluntary schools, among others. In March this year, it presented its findings and recommendations in the report. The report was unanimous and was widely welcomed for its impartial assessment of teachers' pay, duties and working time. It examined the need to recruit, retain and motivate teachers of the right quality.
I must tell the hon. Member for Leeds, Central—who touched on the problems of recruitment as he saw them —that the committee made it clear that, having looked carefully at the need to recruit, retain and motivate, it detected no suggestion that overall recruitment and retention was inadequate, and it specifically mentioned that the wastage rates were low. But, as the hon. Gentleman dwelt at some length on the matter of recruitment, perhaps I should set his mind at rest with some additional information. We are currently seeing a 19 per cent. increase in the number of people wishing to enter primary school teaching, and they are being recruited as students.
It is true that we have not yet seen the improvement that we saw last year in the numbers wishing to teach in secondary schools and taking part in PGCE or other graduate courses. None the less, I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is quite common at this time of year for young people who have just graduated from university not to decide instantly about their career prospects. We have noted in the past—and it is perhaps slightly more noticeable this year—that in general young graduates have not yet reached a conclusion at this time about what career to pursue.
This afternoon, however, I talked to TASC—the teaching as a career unit within the Department which examines teacher recruitment—and I can report an interesting and, in my view, encouraging trend. Within the past month, we have received no fewer than 650 inquiries from people up and down the country—and even from abroad—about the possibility of coming into, or returning to, the profession. That should go some way to allay the hon. Gentleman's anxieties.

Mr. Ashdown: As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, this is a key issue. Is the Minister telling us that the Government are satisfied that it will noi be a problem? She must have made some decision this afternoon.

Mrs. Rumbold: It would be the crassest of mistakes for any Minister to say from the Dispatch Box that he or she was entirely certain that the future for teacher recruitment was satisfactory. We shall, of course, continue to monitor the position and check that adequately trained responsible people are entering the profession. But I cannot stand here this evening and give guarantees to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), and I have not the faintest intention of doing so.

Mr. Ashdown: With respect, that was not the question that I asked the Minister. Will she now tell us that the Government, according to their own judgments—and she has talked this afternoon about how she made judgments —are satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that there will be sufficient teachers?

Mrs. Rumbold: The Government remain confident that the measures that we are taking at present will encourage as many people as possible to come into the profession, both as mature students and as graduates straight from university. We shall monitor the position, and we shall be vigilant in ensuring that there are enough teachers to meet not only present but future requirements. That is part and parcel of the Department's work. It is a duty that we have not shirked in the past, and I cannot see us shirking it in the future.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have every confidence that the Government will continue to maintain their high pupil-teacher ratio. Opposition Members who keep intervening presided over education, in the days of the Lib-Lab pact and the last Labour Government, at a time when there was a tremendous mismatch between what was provided in the classroom and the need for specialist teachers in certain subjects. It ill becomes hon. Members who sit on the SLD and Labour Benches to speak as they have spoken this afternoon.

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. That is true. However, I do not want to point the finger at any Administration for any mismatch within the profession, particularly at the time when there was turbulence in the schools.
I have already made the point that the interim advisory committee's report was unanimous and widely welcomed, but it is also important to say that it tackled the issues in ways that were clear, concise and constructive. Neither the unions nor the management have made serious criticisms of the way in which the committee tackled its task.
On 19 April my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science published the report and began the statutory consultation process on its recommendations. On 26 May he confirmed that after careful consideration he had decided to accept in full the pay recommendations of the interim advisory committee. The Government believe that the IACs proposals were both sensible and fair, coming as they did on top of the 25 per cent. pay increase that teachers received on average between March 1986 and October 1987.
The proposals implemented by the order gave all teachers a 4¼ per cent. rise in their basic pay from 1 April this year. Teachers on the main scale will receive a further 4 per cent., on average, in September as a result of their annual increments. In addition, there is a 7·5 per cent.


increase in the London allowances—backdated to July 1987—increases in the value of incentive allowances and an acceleration in the introduction of the A allowances.
A teacher who was formerly on scale 2, for example, who receives an A allowance from this September will receive an overall increase of 14·5 per cent. during this year, made up of the increase in all scale points, an increment and the value of the incentive allowance.
The report effectively endorsed the new pay structure, duties and working time for teachers that were introduced last year. The IACs positive attitude towards the use of incentive allowances as a reward for good teachers has been welcomed on all sides, especially by the local education authorities. The report recorded the local authority representatives as saying that the new incentive allowances provided "a useful managerial tool" which could be
flexibly applied to secure a range of different objectives.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would let me make a few more points. Then by all means I shall give way to him. He knows that I always do.
The interim advisory committee recognised the importance and usefulness of the incentive allowances by recommending that the value of each allowance should be increased and that the proposed rate of introduction of the A allowances should be accelerated. The Government accepted the recommendations, even though they took the total beyond £300 million. The planned expansion of 36,000 A allowances will now take place over two years rather than three. That means that 50 per cent. of teachers in primary schools and 60 per cent. in secondary schools will receive incentive allowances or be heads or deputies by September 1989.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady mentioned 14·5 per cent. Will she tell the House what the increase will be if we take away the increments that teachers were already due to receive?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a short debate. When hon. Members seek to catch my eye the Chair will be bound to take into account the frequency of interventions. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has intervened four times. He should bear that point in mind if he seeks to catch my eye.

Mrs. Rumbold: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that it is about 6·5 per cent.

Mr. Ashdown: No. It is 4·25 per cent.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman cannot even add up. It is 6·5 per cent.
The interim advisory committee made no recommendations that required changes to the part of the school teachers' pay and conditions document of 1987 dealing with the duties and working time of teachers, but it made various comments on mid-day supervision, cover for absent colleagues and teachers on short notice contracts. The Government believe that local education authorities will want to consider carefully the views expressed by the committee on the conditions of service of teachers.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central also referred to negotiating rights for teachers and linked that important matter to the morale of the teaching profession as a whole. The interim advisory committee did a very good job this year but, by definition, it is an interim arrangement. It remains the Government's aim to introduce new arrangements for the determination of teachers' pay and conditions.
With this objective in mind, the Government put forward certain proposals for the future determination of pay and conditions in the form of a Green Paper that was published last October. The Green Paper aimed to survey the relevant issues and set out a range of possible solutions. It proposed a teachers' negotiating group with a separate committee to deal with heads' and deputies' pay and conditions. That was a consultative paper which did not set out final decisions.
A large number of comments have been received as a result of the Green Paper and we are giving them careful consideration, but I am bound to say that the various comments suggest that there will be difficulties in reaching agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held brief discussions about future machinery for the determination of teachers' pay and conditions with the teacher unions and local authority employers in the context of the meetings held this year about the IAC report. He will be offering further meetings in September, when I hope we shall look to the time when longer and more detailed discussions can be held.
Because of the differences of view among the various parties, it would have been impossible to have new, permanent and acceptable machinery in place in time for the 1989 pay settlement. For the sake of the country as a whole, we must not risk a return to the sort of chaos that has been so damaging to the teaching profession, the pupils and the schools. The interim arrangements have given us a chance to review the whole question of teachers' pay determination. We must use that opportunity to work towards machinery that is acceptable, workable and permanent. It must reflect the interests of parents, teachers, central and local taxpayers and, above all, the children.

Mr. Fatchett: We have had a number of assurances from Ministers at the Dispatch Box that the provisions will be interim and temporary. Can the Minister give a clear commitment that the 1990 pay round will be determined by some form of collective bargaining process?

Mrs. Rumbold: If the hon. Gentleman had been patient and waited for two minutes, he could have saved the House some time. I was about to say that the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 made provision for the interim arrangements to last until 1990. We have always made it clear that that was the target date for establishing new permanent machinery. It remains so. My right hon. Friend therefore confirmed last week that the interim advisory committee would advise on the pay settlement for 1989. We are grateful for the fine work that has been done by Lord Chilver and his committee during the last year. We look forward to a further year of thorough analysis by the committee.

Mr. Fatchett: I deliberately asked the Minister about 1990 because that is the time when the interim arrangements run out. The Minister said that it is still the Government's target to change the arrangements after


1990. Will the Minister give a clear commitment now that the Government intend to restore collective bargaining for teachers' pay after 1990? Will she confirm that that is an intention, not a target?

Mrs. Rumbold: Through the negotiating machinery and discussions with unions and the local authority employers, the Government intend to establish sensible negotiating arrangements. We do not want to return to the kind of chaos that reigned before the interim advisory committee was set up.

Mr. Flannery: Who caused it?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman asks me who caused it. It happened over a period of years. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will want to go any further into that matter. As I have said, the Government are looking to a firm arrangement, and the target date is 1990.
I now turn to points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central about the International Labour Organisation. Much noise has been made about all this. Hon. Members may not, however, be aware that the ILO has recognised that we are already taking steps towards new and lasting machinery. The committee on freedom of association of the ILO has noted that the consultations now under way will give the United Kingdom Government an opportunity to make legislative amendments.
The ILO is, of course, fully aware of the timing of the interim arrangements as set out in the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987. It is aware of our intention to set up new machinery for the determination of pay and conditions by 1990 and it has not asked that matters should proceed on any different timetable.
As a signatory to the International Labour Organisation convention, we are considering what the ILO has said and will keep this in mind as we move towards new machinery for determining school teachers' pay and conditions.
The order which we are debating this evening brings into effect the provisions relating to remuneration and other conditions of employment as set out in the school teachers' pay and conditions document of 1988. I recognise that the Opposition felt bound to pray against this order if only to give the hon. Member for Leeds, Central a chance to have a good old rant at me. But I cannot conceive that they expect the debate to result in anything other than approval of the order. Teachers want their pay rise and the Opposition cannot seriously intend to deny it to them.
The making of the order and the publication of the school teachers' pay and conditions document of 1988 followed extensive consultation. During the consultations, very few comments were made on the text either of the order or of the document.
Finally, one of the most encouraging signs during this school year has been the fact that teachers, despite all the comments from the newspapers, the unions and from many others that their morale is supposedly low, have worked closely with pupils without disruption. The evidence of a changed atmosphere has been highlighted by the introduction of the GCSE and the willingness of everyone to co-operate in making it successful. That is a tribute to the teachers' professionalism and the way in which they wanted to make it a success and put their pupils before other considerations.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Does my hon. Friend agree that when one considers the union membership figures and sees that the National Union of Teachers has lost 74,000 members, the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has lost 32,000 teachers, yet the two most professional and most moderate unions, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and the Professional Association of Teachers, have increased their membership by 50,000 and 43,000 respectively in the past nine years, it is clear that professional teachers know exactly where their interests lie?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Professional teachers are voting with their feet and joining organisations that represent their interests and put their professionalism and the interests of their pupils well above their own personal interests or the interests of some collectivist group that rants against the Government.
I am sure that all teachers would rightly be aggrieved if the order were to be revoked and if they were to lose their pay increase. I hope that the Opposition will not press the matter to a vote, but if they do I must ask the House to vote against the Opposition motion.

Mr. Barry Jones: The ILO has put the Government on the spot. I urge them to respond urgently, do the decent thing and let us have voluntary negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) was right to dwell on morale. The teaching force has been treated very badly by the Government. During the past few years it has been pushed from pillar to post, and I know that the teachers are still smarting from the loss of their free collective bargaining. I was glad to hear my hon. Friend's policy commitment on behalf of the Opposition.
In my constituency, I have encountered a great deal of resentment and frustration in the teaching force. In many visits to schools throughout Wales, in my constituency and in my LEA of Clywd I repeatedly encounter frustrated head teachers who feel that they and their staff must do more with less for children, the parents and the community. The pressure from local education authority headquarters, and from parents, is growing and is relentless. The staff and the profession are always under pressure to deliver. Most head teachers that I speak to about their problems want, above all, extra staff to deliver the highest standards that they are determined to give to parents and children.
At the heart of the many problems that we face in the service are the massive cuts in the rate support grant over the past nine years. Cuts in RSG in England and Wales have borne down severely on the education service. It is argued that in the Principality some £750 million has been lost in rate support grant since 1979. Much of that grant is earmarked for the education service.
In my constituency and my county of Clwyd, there are now major limitations in nursery schooling. In my constituency, in Buckley, a closure is causing uproar among parents.
The Minister did square up to the issue of teachers' pay and tried to respond to the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central. But the award just is not enough, because 4·25 per cent. barely maintains the purchasing power of a year earlier, and in effect it


continues the erosion of the teachers' relative position. It is well below the 6 per cent. negotiated for teachers in Scotland. I do not crib at the Scottish teachers getting that amount, but if the Minister is able to respond, will she say why the teachers in Scotland have obtained a 6 per cent. increase, whereas those in England and Wales will get only 4·25 per cent?
I wish to raise one or two matters covered by the report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions which was chaired by Lord Chilver. It is an interesting and revealing document which highlights many of the problems faced by the service, and which it would face under any Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central dwelt on the question of morale which is very important if our children are to have the best possible education now and if our country, in the run-up to the next century, is to reorder its economy and cope with the increasing competition in industries throughout the world. The document states:
We judge that commitment is good
—among the teaching force—
but we were concerned to find—especially during our visits to schools—that the morale of many teachers is low.
It continues:
Many teachers complain of a lack of public appreciation and recognition; they feel that they have been blamed for all the faults of the education system, and expected to implement a succession of initiatives, for which resources and training are limited.
The resentment at limited resources and training is widespread. I do not believe it to be an exaggeration to say that many teachers who I meet frequently are seething with resentment.
The report also considers co-operation and says:
the co-operation of teachers is essential if the planned changes in education are to be delivered in the classroom. In our view, teachers deserve a fuller measure of public understanding for the difficult role which they will be expected to play in those reforms, and an expression of public appreciation, encouragement and confidence in them.
The Secretary of State and the Minister should take more opportunities to say what the report is saying.

Mr. Mark Fisher: They never take such opportunities.

Mr. Jones: Indeed not. The Government have taken the big stick to the profession. They have forgotten that the harder they hit, the lower morale will be, so our children will not get the very best in state schools. I want the Government to end their constant sniping at teachers. They should take the lead and attempt to raise teacher morale.
On quality, the report says:
there is evidence of a mismatch between the demands of the curriculum and the qualifications of teachers; too many secondary classes are already having to be taught by non-specialist teachers, and the problem seems likely to be exacerbated by the demands of the national curriculum.
I do not believe from any of the utterances of Ministers that I have heard recently that the Government have faced up to the fact that, although they want more from teachers, they are not providing sufficient staff in certain areas. The curriculum is narrowing. That is a feature of secondary schools in Wales and I should be astonished if the same were not true in England. I do not believe that the Government understand the seriousness of the mismatch

between the demands of the curriculum and the qualifications of teachers. Teachers and parents tell me of their great regret at the narrowing of the curriculum.
The Government have misjudged the mood of teachers. It appears that they have also underestimated parents' anxieties about the shortages of books and equipment in many schools as instanced in the harrowing details in Her Majesty's inspectorate's annual reports for England and Wales. The Govenment are understating teachers' difficulties. A large majority in the House has made the Government careless and arrogant, but before long they will pay dearly for their misuse of power.

Mr. James Pawsey: Perhaps the best answer that I can give the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) is a quotation from a speech which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made only today. The hon. Gentleman accused the Government of sniping at teachers and said that that should stop. My right hon. Friend said:
I pay tribute to the way very many teachers have responded, despite the difficulties in recent years in the relationship between the Government and some of the teacher unions. I welcome the fact that these difficulties are behind us, and that the teaching profession as a whole has accepted last year's settlement on pay and conditions".
The debate arises on an Opposition motion, but when the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) rose to open the debate, not one member of his party was present. Indeed, not one member of the SLD was present. There was nobody here to support him. Having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, I understand why none of his hon. Friends were here. His speech was pedestrian and lack-lustre even by his unexacting standards.
I was pleased to read in a parliamentary answer of 22 June that Lord Chilver has agreed to continue for a second year as chairman of the interim advisory committee on school teachers' pay and conditions. His recent report is detailed and constructive, and it should be commended by the House.
Teacher motivation has attracted the House's attention. While pay is important, it clearly is not everything. It has been said that teachers' morale and motivation have been adversely affected by uncertainty about who is in charge in a school—the local education authority and its officers and elected members, governors with a strong parental element or the head teacher and staff. Each of those groups has duties and responsibilities, but they overlap from time to time. I can illustrate the point by referring to last year's pay report. Few teachers read it because its circulation was somewhat haphazard. The report did not reach the people who were most affected by it. Teachers were left unsure, and to the tender mercies of their trade unions' propaganda and the sometimes ambiguous statements of local education authorities.
Management in schools sometimes leaves something to be desired. An important issue which faces teaching is the need for a clear chain of responsibility so that teachers know who is in charge of the day-to-day running of a school. The vacuum left by the absence of responsibility, authority and good communication is filled by speculation and uncertainty, and where there is uncertainty, rumour will abound. The delegation of more power to schools under the Education Reform Bill will help in that respect.
Lord Chilver and his colleagues on the advisory committee have identified an area that needs attention. I listened with some interest to Opposition Members speaking about negotiating rights. We have heard it all before, but I do not believe that anybody would argue for the return of the discredited Burnham committee. It was a shambles of disagreement and a recipe for dispute. A joint negotiating council would be much the same—it would merely be a son of Burnham. In the end, Burnham was sustained only by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The advisory committee's report proposes an increase of about 4·25 per cent. on average, which my right hon. Friend has accepted.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I shall——

Mr. Ashdown: rose——

Mr. Pawsey: In a minute. The hon. Gentleman is far too impetuous. I can see that he is giggling all over his face, to use his preferred phrase, but he must contain himself for a moment. It is honestly a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) here participating in our debates. I understand that he has other matters preying more deeply on his mind, but it is good to see him.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman was here last night and the night before.

Mr. Pawsey: I will not disagree with that. Why should I?
The report to which I referred recommends substantial increases in the number of incentive posts which carry allowances and provide a boost to the good, conscientious teacher. I am happy to say that good, conscientious teachers still remain the majority in their profession.
Most teachers are dedicated to the children in their charge and to their profession. I want to refer to an article that appeared in The Times Educational Supplement on 24 June. The article refutes a point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. The article states:
Certainly the recent pay review has stemmed the flow of good teachers out of schools especially those who work outside London. But it would be an insult to the vast majority of the teaching force if it were suggested that they come into teaching essentially because of money. Most consider their work to be a vocation.
How I applaud the sentiments in that article.
One virtue that springs from the abolition of Burnham and the introduction of the interim advisory committee is that the recruiting and propaganda platform provided by Burnham no longer exists. That platform was used for those purposes by some unions. Interestingly, the unions are no longer as militant as they were. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) in his interesting observations.
I notice that the loss of membership in the National Union of Teachers coincides with a reduction in militancy by that union. The more militant, the fewer members. I urge hon. Members to consider that. The dislocation that occurred over 18 months including the half-day strikes was damaging not just to our schoolchildren—and God knows, that was bad enough—but to teachers and their profession. The dislocation reduced their prestige and in turn adversely affected morale.
Pay is not the only and overriding issue. However, the 164 per cent. award last year helps to ensure that teachers are appreciated. However, teachers have concerns other

than pay. For example, they are apprehensive about school discipline. They are also apprehensive about certain changes in the Education Reform Bill.
Teachers require more reassurance and appreciation. As I said earlier, most teachers do a splendid job. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a persuasive manner. I am sure that he will use that manner to good advantage when he meets members of the profession. I am certain that unless we enjoy the good will of the teaching profession, we shall have difficulty carrying through the reforms in the Education Reform Bill.
I am quite convinced that the Education Reform Bill will substantially improve the quality and standard of state education, where the majority of our children are educated. I am convinced that we shall have the full support of the teachers in this country.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) today, as I have listened to him for so long in Committees, with interest, but not much agreement, However, he did get one matter right and he should be congratulated on that. He was blunt enough and accurate enough to give the real increase in teachers' pay. He was right to say that it is 4·25 per cent.
It would benefit the House if he were to take the Minister aside. She is clearly as inaccurate and off the record as she has been so often before. She said that the award was 6 per cent. Of course she was wrong. She has been wrong before. As she will not listen to Opposition Members, it would benefit the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, hon. Members on both sides of the House and the cause of truth if he were to educate the Minister in this matter. She is clearly not educated. For the record, the award is 4·25 per cent. and not, as the Minister said, 6 per cent. after taking increments away or, as she tried to say, 14·5 per cent. That is a characteristic example of the Government's lack of attention to detail and an example of their characteristic capacity to manipulate figures to make people believe what the Government want them to believe.
We need a clear answer from the Minister on another point. Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rightly asked us not to intervene too much. I wanted to intervene in the Minister's speech because we require her to be clear on a specific point. If she provides me with the right answer, I will finish my speech now. The Minister told us that the Government's target date for operating the permanent mechanism is 1990. I will happily give way to the Minister if she will answer me. Does she mean in place by 1989 to deal with 1990 pay or does she mean in place by 1990 to deal with 1991 pay? The Minister was not clear on that. It would benefit the House if she could tell us which of two options is right. The Minister is spending a lot of time thinking about the matter—enough time for her to send a Parliamentary Private Secretary to ask an adviser. Is the target 1989 for 1990 or in place for 1990 to negotiate pay for 1991? We have a right to know.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Pawsey: The answer will come in the Minister's reply.

Mr. Ashdown: In the interests of time, I would be prepared to finish if the Minister would clarify that point.


It should stand on the record that the Minister does not seem to know the nature of the commitment that she made.

Mr. Pawsey: Wait and see.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth says, "Wait and see." I should not have to wait and see.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science gave a commitment on the record on 5 May last year that the Government were heading for the mechanism to be in place by 1989 to deal with the 1990 pay rise. Is the Minister sticking to that? If so, the House should know. If, on the other hand, the target date that the Minister has put forward is a full year later, the Secretary of State's commitment has not been honoured. The House must take that matter very seriously.
For fear that anyone should doubt what the Secretary of State said, I point out that he said in response to a question from me:
I do not think that it will be possible to get an agreed new permanent machinery by April 1988. However, that does not mean that we will not be able to get it in place by April 1989 —that is, before 1990"—[Official Report, 5 May 1987; Vol. 115, c. 675.]
The Secretary of State declared that as the target. Is the Minister saying that there is a slippage of a year? If so, we have a right to know why.
I do not speak against the motion on the basis that I oppose the Chilver report. I agree with some of the comments. Lord Chilver's report was good and well rehearsed and I am delighted that he had the courage to resist the Government's £300 million limit. Of course we could expect the Government to accept the recommendation, but then cynically to fail to give local education authorities the money to fulfil it.
We also expect the Government to manipulate the level of the pay rises in the way that the Minister has been exposed as doing. Nor will I vote against the principle of incentive allowances, even though the scales that the Government have suggested are very confining. They lack fiexibility to such an extent that the headmaster of the comprehensive school which my children attended told me that the allowances are so confining that he has no real chance of allocating them except on the basis of new responsibility.
Lord Chilver commented on precisely the same point, but that is not why I am speaking against the motion. I am doing so because a commitment was made a year ago in the House by the Secretary of State for Education and Science that steps would be taken to put the permanent machinery in place as soon as possible. To honour that commitment, in October 1987 the Government published their proposals and sought responses by January 1988. From that date to this, no discernible movement has taken place. The Minister said that there have been brief discussions; they were very few and very brief. I suspect, as I imagine do teachers and others outside the House, that the failure to meet that commitment was not an accident. The truth of the matter is that the Government want the Gerbil in place so that school governors have the right to remove allowances, to abolish automatic salary increments and to introduce performance pay by stealth before

the permanent body is established to reintroduce teachers capacities and to give them some say in their terms and conditions.
I am not, in principle, against a sensible system of performance pay. It must be introduced by consultation and negotiation with teachers, not by stealth. I hope that the Minister will make it clear whether the Government have shifted their target. If they have, they have done so cynically so that conditions will be in force when the permanent body is established, thus undermining the democratic consensus-based system.

Mrs. Rumbold: rose——

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Lady has her answer. It has taken her five or six minutes to get the answer from her minders in the Box and, perhaps, as long to digest it. The House awaits, with some anticipation, for her answer.

Mrs. Rumbold: May I read to the hon. Gentleman— who appears to be deaf and dense, among other things —what I clearly said. The Teachers Pay and Conditions Act 1987 made provision for interim arrangements to last until 1990. The Government have always made it clear that that was the target date for establishing and having in place the permanent machinery, and that remains so.

Mr. Ashdown: It has taken the hon. Lady six minutes to get it wrong. I asked her to tell me whether the Government's target is to put the permanent machinery in place, as the Secretary of State said, by April 1989 to deal with pay for 1990 or by 1990 to deal with pay for 1991. It is no good the hon. Lady looking to her minders; they will not give her an answer. She must have sufficient mastery of her brief to allow her to answer one way or the other. I give the hon. Lady the opportunity so to do. Perhaps when she replies to the debate she will have received the answer. Will the machinery be in place by 1989 to deal with pay for 1990 or by 1990 to deal with pay for 1991? In the interests of receiving an answer, and having said what I want to say, I shall finish my remarks.

Mr. George Walden: I apologise to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for not being present to hear his speech.
We are talking not only about pay but pay and conditions, which are both mentioned in the motion. There are conditions on either side. Teachers' conditions are to supply quality teaching. My hon. Friend the Minister paid tribute to the professionalism of teachers. I understand why she has to say that—it is part of the functions of her job. I draw attention to the report of Her Majesty's inspectorate that was published yesterday. It said that 75 per cent. of the classes that the inspectors attended were guilty of the most heinous education sin —low expectation. It is difficult to square what my hon. Friend the Minister naturally felt obliged to say about the professionalism of teachers with the HMI report, which mentioned low expectation in 75 per cent. of the 8,000 classes that the inspectors attended. That signifies that a basic and fundamental problem of quality remains within the British education system.
I know perfectly well that my hon. Friend and the Government are doing what they can to improve the position, and I know that many teachers are concerned about the quality of their profession, but it is not fair on


the ordinary children who receive state education—who can never aspire to attend a private school and receive a higher quality of education—to delude ourselves that there is an untapped mass of professionalism, when we know perfectly well—it was confirmed by the HMI report—that there is a major problem of low expectation.
The other side of the conditions coin is what teachers are expected to do. If one asks teachers to have higher expectations of their pupils and to compete with the private sector—which is growing, flourishing and producing better standards—one must reduce class sizes. I know that nationally the figures have been decreasing, but they need to decrease further. The size of classes in private schools is normally 14 to 20 pupils. Clearly that is a major advantage for the teacher and brings out the best in him or her. It encourages him or her to demand and receive higher expectations, which are of crucial national importance. I know that the overall record and the pupil-teacher ratios are good, but I should like the size of classes to be reduced further. As the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said earlier, it will not be possible for teachers to deliver all the additional effort and professionalism that is rightly being asked of them by the Government, even with smaller classes. Class sizes must reduce further, and if that costs money it will be money well spent. It would have a good effect on the private sector, which at present is having life far too easy. It is impossible to talk about pay without mentioning the quality of teachers and the obligations that class sizes and other problems place on them.
I am convinced by my hon. Friend's remarks about the pay increases teachers received that 4·25 per cent. is reasonable, but I should like to enter one important caveat. It is impossible to discuss this subject without having regard to the whole economy. My hon. Friend said that high inflation damages teachers as much as anyone else, but given the crucial importance that I attach— perhaps privately my hon. Friend does also—to education and the quality of teachers, it would be serious and damaging if we returned to the position of the past when teachers were the only people marching in step and keeping high wage claims down.
I understand the background to this matter and the Treasury's viewpoint—it is responsible to take account of its viewpoint. If we want the elite teaching force that ordinary children—whose parents do not have the money to give them a private education—have a right to expect, we shall have to watch the quality of education, watch class sizes and watch teachers' pay. Teachers should at least be adequately rewarded for their extremely difficult task.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It was interesting to see how the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) under-estimated, just as the Minister did, the report from the inspectorate, which said that 25 per cent., not 75 per cent., of teachers were dissatisfied. Like the Minister, the hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round in his eagerness to condemn teachers.
It is necessary to give some of the history of what has happened to teachers. Last night, there was a debate about democracy and the failure to consult the teachers' unions and local education authorities. This is a continuation of

that debate in different circumstances. The Minister let the cat out of the bag. There is not a semblance of democratic thought in anything that she said. The interim report says:
The interim advisory committee was established as a result of a major change in the framework in which the pay and conditions of school teachers in England and Wales are determined.
It speaks of that happening in 1987, but now we have to wait until 1990. Therefore, teachers will have had four years without negotiating rights. It is no wonder that the International Labour Organisation, which is part of the United Nations, condemned the Government for not having a proper negotiating machinery.
The Minister compounded her felony by going on to praise the interim advisory committee. The issue is not whether that advisory committee under Lord Chilver made a good report. It comprised a hand-picked group of people, unelected by anybody and chosen by the Secretary of State. Naturally he chose the members so that they would produce the report that he wanted. People condemned the Burnham committee, but it was an elected body. I was elected to serve on it by the National Union of Teachers. That committee was smashed by the Government. It had weaknesses, but all democracy has weaknesses. The House has weaknesses. Many hon. Members are not here for the debates—often fewer than 25 per cent. of all Members are present.
The teachers' unions asked that, instead of the interim advisory committee, there should be an elected body, which they called the joint national council. The International Labour Organisation watched what was happening and took action. However, it cannot compel the Government to do anything, so the Minister was wrong to say that it connived at this process because it did not interfere. The ILO cannot bludgeon the Government into doing as they are told. It has to watch them and see What they do. I am sure that any honest democrat will agree that it will be a disgrace if the teachers have no negotiating machinery for four years. Well over 100 years of free negotiations have been cast aside, and this order continues that felony, despite the fact that it is possible to have proper negotiations.
This lack of negotiating rights is wrong and will have profound effects. The teachers were defeated after they were provoked into action by the pitiful wages they were being paid, so they are now in a difficult position. However, they have a democratic approach to the problem that the Government do not have, and a lack of democracy will always catch up with a Government. The Government are arrogant and over-proud because of their huge majority, but in time this will catch up on them.
The hard facts about wages have not been given. My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) gave some of the figures when he talked about an increase of 4·25 per cent. and the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) noticed the 6 per cent. mistake that the Minister had made. The Scottish teachers have got 6 per cent., and good luck to them. However, it has not yet been mentioned that the national average wage increase is 8·5 per cent., so a 4·25 per cent. increase for the teachers takes them back a year. The teachers are rightly angry about that.
The teachers have repeatedly asked to see the Secretary of State, but he has repeatedly put them off. He was asked at the beginning of the year and spoke about 29 January. He was asked later and told the deputy general secretary of the NUT that the meeting would happen in a month or


two. Then, he said that it would happen a bit later, and then he said it would happen in June. It has not happened, so there has been no negotiation and only a report from an unelected body. No matter how good that report might be, it has come from an undemocratic body.
We would like from the Minister an answer to the question that the hon. Member for Yeovil asked many times. Will the teachers spend three years with no negotiating rights, or four years? If it is to be four years after assurances that it would be three, who knows whether it will not be five years? Who knows whether the Government will not go on in the same old way because of their huge majority?
Although we shall not vote against the order, it must be pointed out that it is a continuation of a lack of democracy in dealing with a long-established profession. No amount of slanging about that profession or against teachers will do anything to alter that.

Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Flannery: I am about to finish so that another hon. Member can speak.
Will the Government extend democracy or will they carry on with no democracy for the teaching profession? If they do the latter, it will catch up with them in the long run because a lack of democracy always catches up with those who engage in it.

Mrs. Rumbold: With the leave of the House, may I say that the Government are as keen as anyone else to have some organisation to negotiate pay and conditions for teachers in a way that is satisfactory to the profession, to the local authorities and to the Government. With that in mind, we wish to embark as soon as possible on serious discussions with the various parties whom we hope will come together eventually with a proper negotiating group.
In case the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) does not understand this, it is not possible to have negotiations in 1990 with a negotiating body unless such a body has been thought through and some conclusions have been reached by the end of 1989. The Government have given that commitment already, and that is the answer to his question. In other words, if there are to be negotiations on pay and conditions, there must be negotiating machinery.

Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: I have only a few minutes to reply, so I shall not give way.
It has been alleged on a number of occasions that teachers' pay has not been increased by more than 4 per cent. The average main scale teachers'pay will rise by just under 4 per cent. as a result of increments, but it is important to remember that teachers' pay has also increased by 4·25 per cent. across the board. By anybody's reckoning, this leads to an increase of more than 4 per cent. for everybody, because teachers are not all paid at the same rate all the way through.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow): It may be convenient for the House to know that a head teacher on the maximum scale earns nearly £32,000 a year. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the teacher on the top of the scale —not a head or a deputy head—will be earning nearly £14,000 with possibly £4,500 extra as a result of the incentive allowance?

Mrs. Rumbold: In fairness, the heads and deputy head teachers have not managed to receive as high increments as the rest of the profession as a result of the pay round. Therefore, although my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is correct, it was the principal task of the interim advisory committee to consider the main group in the profession.
I do not accept the allegation that the Government are not considering seriously the establishment of proper negotiating machinery for the teaching profession. I also do not accept that the Government have not thought carefully about the rewards for the teaching profession's hard work, given that, in the past three years, they have received a 25 per cent. pay increase as a result of restructuring. On top of that, this year, teachers have received an increase of more than 4 per cent. plus increments representing a further 4 per cent. increase. I believe that that is a good and adequate payment for the hard work that teachers do.

Mr. Fatchett: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) made an appropriate and necessary contribution to this debate. It is sad that that speech did not come from the Minister. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the need for professionalism and the need to reward it, which affects morale and recruitment. Such issues are crucial and have been spotlighted by the interim advisory committee. It is a shame that the Minister did not respond in accordance with the importance of those issues.
It is also a shame that, yet again, the Minister was dismally inept in discussing when the negotiating machinery will be in place and the Government's intentions. The Secretary of State made it clear, in response to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), that it was the Government's intention to establish that negotiating machinery by April 1989. Every word that the Minister has uttered has suggested that that is no longer the Government's intention. We must either reach that conclusion or conclude, as was self-evident during the passage of the Education Reform Bill, that the Minister does not understand her brief and does not understand the issues involved.
The Minister also failed to understand the importance of democratic collective bargaining rights for teachers. The loss of those rights goes to the heart of the collapse of teacher morale and the Minister——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [22 July], put the Question.

Question negatived.

Building Societies

Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Building Societies (Transfer of Business) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1153), dated 4th July 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th July, be annulled.
The Building Societies (Transfer of Business) Regulations set out some of the detailed procedure that must be followed and the information provided when a building society wishes to convert to plc status. We remain fundamentally opposed to conversion and we have made our views especially clear in view of the current rush by Abbey National to convert.
A mutual society is owned by its members and is answerable to them. It has no shareholders and it folds all its surpluses back into the running and prosperity of the society. As a result of the regulations, a society has ample powers to compete flexibly and fairly with banks and other financial institutions.
It is worth mentioning that our scepticism about the necessity for conversion of the building societies is shared by a number of Conservative Members. I studied the debates that took place on 4 June 1986 when the Building Societies Bill was considered on Report and Third Reading. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) referred to the ability of foreign banks to buy up converted building societies as, "a real threat." The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) spoke about conversion and the loss of mutuality and said:
If that sense of mutuality is broken … that link of loyalty, which is inestimable, will be broken.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) asked:
why do we want to allow companies which are not building societies to buy building societies?"—[Official Report, 4 June 1986; Vol. 98, c. 939–41.]
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) also spoke against the idea of conversion. Therefore, it is clear that there is widespread unease about the prospect of building societies, with all the benefits that mutuality brings, converting into plcs and becoming just like any other financial institution.
If, however, conversion is proposed by the board of a society we must be certain that the case for and against is put impartially to the members of that society before they vote. That is what the regulations are all about. We feel that they go some way towards ensuring fairness and partiality, but nowhere near far enough. It sets out the information that is required to be given in detail to the members of the society—borrowers and investors—befpre they vote.
I received a letter dated 8 July from the deputy chairman of the Building Societies Commission. That letter sets out the commission's view with admirable clarity and it is worth quoting. The deputy chairman said:
This statement"—
the statement presented to members by the board of a society—
will have to present all material facts relating to the proposals in clear and unambiguous terms so that the members can base their decisions on how to vote on an objective view of the consequences of conversion for members and employees.

That is the intention of the Building Societies Commission and also the intention of the regulations. The letter continues:
When the Commission approves these statements, it will be concerned to ensure that a fair balance is drawn between a clear presentation of all the material facts and masses of detail which might obscure the central issues.
There can be little quarrel with that. That statement is fine as far as it goes, but what would happen if the Building Societies Commission approves the statement that the board proposes to send out to members but, as the result of its issue, there are serious objections from many quarters among the society's membership that it has not presented an entirely fair and balanced case?
What are the real chances of the Building Societies Commission using the powers that are available to it to refuse confirmation of the conversion? They are negligible, because it is impossible for the Building Societies Commission to be both judge and jury in its own scrutiny, which is precisely what the legislation seeks to make it. It is worth pointing out in passing that too little time was allowed between the draft statutory instrument being circulated for comment and the final version being decided upon. The group of Abbey National members—the Abbey Members Against Flotation—who have been waging a valiant campaign as David pitted against the Goliath of the board of Abbey National, made their detailed representations at a meeting with the Building Societies Commission late one week, and the final version of the statutory instrument was published the following week. So there was not enough time to take account of the detailed objections that they had to this instrument——

Mr. John Butterfill: Of the 6,500,000 members of Abbey National, how many are represented by the body to which the hon. Gentleman has referred? How many turned up at their recent meeting?

Mr. Smith: Quite a large number turned up at the meeting, which I think took place last weekend. There are several hundred members in the organisation and that number is growing weekly. They began their campaign against flotation only a few months ago; their resources are severely limited: they have been afforded no facilities by Abbey National to contact members; and they have been refused permission to place their leaflets in building society branches to enable them to contact more members. In view of all that, their record is fairly creditable, and their arguments have been put with skill and vigour, in spite of their seemingly small numbers, to which the hon. Gentleman is doubtless attempting to draw attention.

Mr. Butterfill: Would it be correct to say that there were 60 members at the last meeting?

Mr. Smith: I was not present at the meeting, so I cannot confirm or deny that number. If it is correct, it was still a creditable turnout, which may well have been much larger than the turnout at meetings of Conservative associations around the country.
I come now to the crucial issue of how tough these provisions are. I am forced to the conclusion that they are not tough or strict enough. We must remember that the board of the society will put the case to its members. It will send out the information and, having decided to recommend conversion, it will tend to put the case in a partisan way. Let us consider the mailing that Abbey National recently sent out to all its members—at their


expense, because the funds for it came from the funds of the society. The cost was considerable. The brochure that Abbey National sent out asked one or two questions that had been raised by members who were anxious about the process of flotation. The answers are thin to say the least. For example, to the question
What would be the basis for allocating the shares in the PLC?
the response is:
An acceptable scheme will have to be worked out".
A few lines further on the brochure states:
we would recognise Members' rights in an appropriate way.
What on earth is that supposed to mean? What sort of guidance can that statement give members about the board's intentions?
Further on in the document, the arguments for converting to plc status seem to be that
None of the business we do today is safe from competition. Our ability to compete on equal terms with our large financial institutions is still restricted.
No mention there of the decisions that have already been taken by the Halifax and the Nationwide Anglia building societies—that their powers are ample to enable them to compete effectively. They have a flexible enough regime to be able to prosper without conversion.
However, the Abbey National says:
we must recognise the highly competitive reality of today and build for a prosperous future.
It is like listening to speeches from Ministers at Conservative party conferences. There is no solid content to the document. Apart from having a patronising tone, it is verbose, repetitive and gives almost no concrete reasons about why conversion to plc status is a suitable and sensible option for Abbey National members.
The document is also very one-sided. The chief executive of the Abbey National seems to be rather proud of that. In an article that he wrote in The Independent of 18 July he said:
They have been receiving"—
that is, Abbey National members—
the first of several mailings that will set out the arguments that have convinced the Abbey National board that conversion into a plc offers the best opportunities for the future.
That was the chief executive's statement about the intention and content of the first of a number of mailings that Abbey National members will receive. Where is the two-sided balance? The chief executive says that the board will set out the argument that conversion offers the best opportunities for the future. In other words, the mailings will be entirely in favour of the recommendations that the board wants to put to members.
That leads me to the first of my four principal demands of the Government, which seek to improve and toughen the regulations over the next few months. My first demand is that the necessity for impartiality and balance should apply not just to the final transfer statement that is made to members when they are on the point of voting but to all documents sent out to members during the flotation campaign. If an argument were needed for that, the Abbey National has just supplied us with it. If there is no requirement for balance from day one of the campaign, members will be deluged with mountains of propaganda from the board telling them—at their own expense—how wonderful the idea of conversion is, long before they

receive the supposedly balanced statement. It is important that there should be balance throughout the process rather than just at the end of it.
My second demand is that there should be an independent auditors' validation of all the financial information provided to members, not only those aspects of information that are covered by the provisions of paragraph 14(a) of part I of the schedule to the regulations. The provisions of that paragraph mean that paragraph 8 of part I, which refers to
The future financia1 prospects of the successor company", is omitted from the auditors' required assessment. We see no reason for that omission.

Mr. Butterfill: Is it not true that, in addition to the requirements of the transfer statement, there will be a requirement to obtain the approval of the Bank of England to achieve the objectives of the flotation? Will not the information required by the Bank of England be considerably more onerous than is likely to be required by almost any other document?

Mr. Smith: That is correct. However, we are discussing the information that is available to members of the society. I should have thought that it was unarguable that the members of the society should be assured that the information that they receive has been properly validated. That is what we request.
Thirdly, we would want to see a truly independent assessment of all the aspects and consequences of conversion, financial and non-financial, to be sent out to all members. If possible, it should be drawn up by the Building Societies Commission after consultation with groups of members opposed to flotation. It should be sent out alongside the statement made by the board. It should not be left just to the board to mount its case. If we need an argument for that, the Abbey National literature stands testament to it, as does the Abbey National's board's refusal to allow the use of facilities in its branches, at public meetings it intends to hold around the country and within its own mailing. It has denied any such facilities to any group of members of Abbey National opposed to flotation.
Fourthly, the information to be provided to members should be in plain layman's language. Many of the provisions of transfer will inevitably be complex. It is important that members have an understandable set of provisions upon which they can make a judgment.
Those are all improvements that should be made to the regulations. We shall not divide the House, because the regulations go a substantial way towards ensuring the balance we seek. However, supplementary provisions could be brought forward in due course to ensure that the improvements that we believe are necessary are made.
The Lex column at the back of the Financial Times is always worth reading. It is a column of considerable percipience. I shall watch with interest to see what it has to say tomorrow about today's news that the balance of payments deficit for June has gone over the £1 billion mark. It is yet further confirmation of the trend in the economy about which we have been warning Conservative Members and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some considerable time.
On 21 July the Lex column said:
The clearing banks have demonstrably failed to prove that their access to the capital markets has improved their


performance, and the mutual Scottish Life companies often provide a much better service than their joint stock competitors.
That is absolutely right. In terms of money management and service to their customers, the mutual societies within the insurance world perform much better on the whole than those that have attained plc status. The Lex column continues:
mutual status provides a kind of financial discipline on management which is sorely missing elsewhere.
Lex was absolutely right. There is virtually nothing to be gained and much to be lost when mutual status disappears. At the very least we must ensure that the case for or against flotation is not presented in a loaded manner but is properly, fully and fairly put. We need tougher regulations to ensure that that happens. Building society members must not be dragooned into voting the way the board wants.

Mr. John Butterfill: I am puzzled that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) should assert that mutual status is so entirely desirable. One of the great criticisms that have been levelled at the building society movement, although it has done great work, is that it is effectively accountable to no one and that the boards of building societies have, in many cases, become self-perpetuating oligarchies simply because the representation of their members is so difficult to achieve in any effective way. The boards have effectively been able to do what they wish. Any proposal to make building society boards more accountable must, therefore, have some advantage. I am by no means totally persuaded that it would be in the best interests of this country as a whole if all our building societies went down the route of flotation.
On the other hand, it is right that different companies and their respective boards should take different views on that. What the Halifax board may decide may be quite different from what the Abbey National board decides, and that is an entirely healthy situation. There should be room for difference of opinion as to which is the best way to proceed to maintain one's competitiveness in a market in which all sorts of players who were not even envisaged a few years ago are now playing. Large American banks and Japanese organisations, such as Sumitomo and Continental, mortgage and bond-issuing houses, are now in a market that was traditionally filled by the building societies. It is right that we should be giving the building societies at least the power to respond in the way that their boards think fit.
I am also convinced that we should do that only if adequate controls exist. The controls contained in the regulations before us tonight are more than adequate. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned the requirements of the schedule in terms of the information to be given to members. Paragraph 1, which relates to the consequences of the transfer, states that the consequences are required to be given
for members holding shares in the society;
for borrowing members of the society; and, because the consequences will be different for them, for the employees.
I understand that the Building Societies Commission has made it clear that any statement produced will need to be a fair and balanced statement, giving the case from all sides. I believe that I am correct in saying that Michael Bridgeman has written a letter to the Abbey National

requiring that. I am led to suspect, therefore, that the concerns expressed by the Opposition this evening stem more from their reluctance to see new private sector companies being created than from anything else. There is more than a suspicion in the case of the Abbey National that AMAF—Abbey Members Against Flotation—may be substantially organised by the Labour party.

Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman must not be allowed to get away with that. I have had considerable contact over a number of weeks with key members of AMAF. Many of them would be outraged by such a suggestion as the hon. Gentleman has just made. I live in hope that they may in due course see the light and come to support the Labour party, but the hon. Gentleman's statement is completely incorrect.

Mr. Butterfill: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman takes exception to what I said. Perhaps I can try to justify my suspicions. The hon. Gentleman must correct me if anything that I say is incorrect. I believe that the chairman of AMAF is a Mr. Alec Leaver, who is a prominent member of the Labour party and a former trade union official. I believe that one of the most active members of AMAF is Mr. Peter Lowndes, who I believe is a research assistant to the hon. Members for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Another leading light in AMAF is a Mr. Hugh Raven who I believe is a research assistant to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is totally factually incorrect. Mr. Hugh Raven is indeed my research assistant, but he is not a member of AMAF. He has had a number of discussions with AMAF in preparation for this debate, and others, as I have had with Abbey National board members. He is certainly not a member of it, and to describe him as a leading activist is incorrect. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that assurance. I accept what he says. I understand, however, that Mr. Hugh Raven has been taking part in the meetings of AMAF. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell me if he has not been present at those meetings. As I understand it, Mr. Peter Lowndes is a member of the AMAF committee. Mr. Lowndes is the research assistant to the hon. Members for Redcar and for Fife, Central. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury if he wishes to deny that.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is developing an extremely thin argument. He has established so far that two members of the AMAF committee happen to be members of the Labour party. I suggest that that is no argument to support his outrageous statement.

Mr. Butterfill: I thought that I had established that three of them were, including the chairman and at least one member of the committee, and that two of them were closely associated with leading Labour Members. It is that, combined with the fact that AMAF was able to muster only 60 people at its meeting—that must be set against 5·5 million investing members and 1 million borrowing members—that leads me to have some scepticism about AMAFs right to speak for Abbey National members. It leads me to support the view of the Abbey National board that AMAF's suggestion that the AMAF statement


should be sent out along with the transfer statement to all Abbey National members would be to give AMAF a prominence which would not be entirely deserved or reflected by its membership or supporters.
Be that as it may, that which is proposed in the regulations is entirely reasonable. It will give more than adequate safeguards to any potential investor. It will certainly give more than adequate information to the existing members of any building society. Therefore, I commend the regulations to the House.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): The questions whether a building society should convert into a public limited company and, if so, how the process should be regulated are important ones. It is right that the House should discuss them before departing for the summer. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
The Building Societies Act 1986 gives building societies the option to convert from mutually owned institutions into plcs if they and their members believe that it is in their interests to do so. I am sure that it is right that the option to convert should be available. It is right also that the decision on conversion should be made by society members and no one else.
The Government's position on any particular proposal to convert is a simple one—we are neutral. The Government wish neither to encourage nor to discourage conversion. The Government want the choice to convert to be made on a level playing field according to fair rules. The Act empowers the Building Societies Commission, with the consent of the Treasury, to set out such rules in the form of transfer regulations, and that is what we are considering.
The regulations have been made after wide and extensive discussions with all concerned, including, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned, the members of the organisation entitled Abbey Members Against Flotation. I understand that that group was given the opportunity to comment on the draft regulations soon after it was formed, and it has acknowledged that its comments were taken into account. The consultation process has been continuing since the first paper was issued in 1987, with draft regulations being issued in December 1987. Therefore, the views of all concerned expressed during that long consultation process have been taken into account in the final regulations laid before the House.
The regulations cover three major areas and a number of minor areas. First, they provide for the continuity of agreements, documents, rights and liabilities from the society to its successor company. They thereby ensure that, for example, mortgage contracts are unaffected by conversion. The successor company simply steps into the society's shoes. Secondly, the regulations deal with the priority liquidation rights of former members of a society that converts. Thirdly, and most important, the regulations set out the matters to be included in the transfer statement that must be sent to members of the society considering conversion. The purpose of that statement is to give members a clear and balanced presentation of all the material facts that they will need to

know before making up their minds on which way to vote. It cannot be circulated until it has been approved by the Building Societies Commission.
The main requirement is that the statement shall give an explanation of the consequences, both positive and negative, of conversion for the members, borrowers and employees of the society. It will have to cover, for example, the treatment of investment and mortgage accounts and employment prospects. The society's financial record and present position will have to be set out, together with particulars of the proposed business plans of the successor company and forecasts of its future financial prospects. Those will be certified by a qualified auditor.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned item 8 of part I of the schedule, concerning future financial prospects, and asked that it, too, be audited. It is not really appropriate to audit a forecast, but the commission will ensure that the requirements of regulation 3(2)—specifying all necessary assumptions, who made them, and who will stand by them —are incorporated in the transfer document. That meets the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's point.
I shall not enumerate all the items listed in the schedule which it is required that the transfer document contains, as they are clearly specified therein. The schedule to the regulations is intended to be comprehensive, but, in addition, the commission has the power to require other matters not specified in the schedule to be included in a transfer statement if the commission thinks that that would be appropriate in a particular case.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has taken up the idea that, in addition to being required to circulate all that information, societies should be obliged to circulate the views of members opposed to flotation. I do not believe that that proposal is either necessary or practical. The regulations and the commission together provide powerful safeguards against a society tempted to put only partial and one-sided information to its members. It is not reasonable to require a society to circulate all its members with the views of every opponent, at any length and regardless of cost.
However, it is worth noting that the Building Societies Act 1986 requires that if a group of 50 members propose a resolution at the AGM, the society must circulate not only that resolution but a copy of a short statement of up to 100 words to all members qualified to vote, provided that the resolution and statement are not frivolous and would not damage confidence in the society. Therefore, a small group of members can have their views circulated to thousands or even millions of their fellow members. A group of 100 members can also requisition a special meeting of the society if they think fit.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury called for transfer documents to be certified as fair and accurate by an independent person, or for a parallel document to be produced and certified as fair and accurate by an independent person. As I have already said, the transfer document must itself be approved by the Building Societies Commission before it can be sent to members. Therefore, it will be subject to scrutiny by an independent body to ensure that it is fair and accurate. The commission is the only body empowered to undertake that function, and it is a very suitable one for the commission. Moreover, the financial information contained in the statement must be certified by a qualified auditor.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury also wanted similar vetting and objectivity requirements applied to all statements made by the society prior to the issue of the transfer document. I do not think that that would be reasonable or sensible. The management of a building society has been selected by members of the society and entrusted to manage and lead it. It is only reasonable that the management should be given a free hand to give a lead without every statement being censored while its critics and opponents are free from such restriction in general discussion that may last for months before the transfer documents are ready.
Under the Building Societies Act 1986, the manage-ment, rightly, has a considerable hurdle to jump before conversion can be carried through. Not a simple majority but a 75 per cent. majority of investing members of the society is required to support conversion. A minimum of 20 per cent., a substantial number in many instances, must take part in the vote, and 50 per cent. of voting borrowers must also support the conversion. I do not feel that it would be reasonable to require the management, prior to that, to maintain an almost monk-like silence unless every word has been vetted.
In any event, once resolutions have been passed the transfer still cannot go ahead until the commission has confirmed it, and it cannot do that if it considers that the vote does not represent the views of the members. In that case, it will hold a hearing at which objectors will have an opportunity to say if they do not believe that the vote was carried out fairly, or if any material information was withheld or misrepresented in the transfer statement. If the commission is persuaded that material information was withheld, it will not grant the conversion before taking remedial action.
Another matter that has caused concern is the possibility of takeovers once a society has converted. The Act does not set out all the details of the new company's articles of association; however, they must incorporate protective provisions that prevent any one person from holding more than 15 per cent. of the shares for the first five years of the successor company. Those provisions are intended to give societies a reasonable breathing space after conversion without the threat of a change in control, so that they can adapt to their new environment of company and banking legislation. Those are important conditions. We consider it right that the institutions involved should have a limited period of stability after conversion, free from the threat of takeovers, and that they should adopt such measures as are necessary to maintain their independence during that period.

Mr. Jim Cousins: Can the Minister tell us whether the important, if now somewhat neglected, aspect of mutual status—the right of members to put resolutions to the meetings—will be preserved in the company status that will result if building societies take advantage of the opportunities that the regulations provide? Will members find themselves in the position in which I found myself as a shareholder in Beecham? I was unable to participate in the annual general meeting to protest at Beecham's contributions to the Conservative party because under the company's rules the backing of 2 per cent. of shareholders was required in order to put a resolution. That would probably require the presence of more than 100,000 people.

Mr. Lilley: The successor society will be a company under the Companies Act. Members of that company will therefore have the rights of any members of such a company, plus any rights granted by the articles of association that will be presented to them in the transfer period.

Mr. Chris Smith: Will the Minister confirm that after conversion a building society would be answerable to its shareholders and only to its shareholders? That would not necessarily include, as membership does at the moment, all borrowers and investors.

Mr. Lilley: That is the very essence of conversion. Any borrower or investor would be able to buy shares and become a voting member, or in the process of conversion he might acquire or be given such shares. That is a factor that members will have to take into account when they decide whether it is right for them to convert. If they like the total package, they will support it. If they do not like it, they will not support it. That is up to them, and we believe that it should be left up to them.
This is not a party political matter. It is for the members of each society to reach a decision in the context of a fair set of rules and regulations that ensure that all material considerations are made clear to them during the discussions. It would be regrettable if it were to become a party political matter. I am glad that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has not sought to politicise it to any great degree. By promising not to oppose the regulations the hon. Gentleman has recognised that they pave the way for fair consideration of decisions that should be made by members of each society, not by hon. Members.

Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that in order to protect the interests of society members they will be given priority rights in the event of a liquidation after conversion?

Mr. Lilley: That is correct. That is laid down in the Act, and the regulations specify how liquidation rights are to be calculated and secured. Society members will retain those rights after conversion. I hope that the House will not annul the regulations.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I listened with care and interest to the Minister's speech. His latter remarks will be welcomed by all hon. Members, but a few points need to be elaborated.
The Economic Secretary said that mortgage contracts will be unaffected by transfer. I accept that that is correct, but I am sure that he agrees that the future conduct and performance of a building society, once it has become a corporate entity, could affect the rate of interest that the building society, or the incorporated bank as it would then be, might subsequently charge. When voting, society members should take that fact into account.
The Economic Secretary also said that managements have been entrusted with the duty of leading building societies and that it should be accepted that managements have leadership qualities. Again that is not in dispute, but to run a building society as a mutual body is quite different from running it as a bank. A few commentators have said that that could make the switch very difficult. The management of a building society, which is very competent


at running a mutual society, could unwittingly lead its members into taking commercial risks for the commercial consequences of which they are not prepared because they lack the necessary expertise. Managers of building societies are not bankers, yet the transfer will convert them into bankers without necessarily providing them with the necessary wisdom and experience to be bankers. That fact must also be borne in mind by all society members when voting for or against conversion.
I do not wish to enter into the debate about whether a particular society—for example, the Abbey National—will serve its existing members and its own future interests better by conversion. I would be very disappointed if that was the course of action that all building societies might wish to follow like gadarene swine. I hope that the Economic Secretary will accept the need for diversity of choice. Putting it bluntly, if we simply converted all building societies into joint stock banks, we would reduce rather than increase the diversity of choice. I hope that as the regulations progress that will be borne in mind.
I anticipate that the Government may take the view that the market and the customers' wishes will automatically determine that. But experience shows that that is not necessarily so. There are fashions in market trends and economic developments change. It would be unfortunate, particularly as building societies vary enormously in size, capability, experience and geographical base—I hope it would not happen—if building societies sought to abandon their commitment to a particular locality. There is merit in a building society having a regional base which it knows and understands, and that is not necessarily a disadvantage.
To some extent, if building societies are likely to convert to a banking mechanism—and I understand the pressures on them to do that—it would be nice to think that some of them might convert to local banks with a particular local knowledge and regional expertise. That would ensure that the changes and the dynamism that is operating within the market led to increased choice, diversity and variety. I hope that the Government and their supporters genuinely wish that to happen but accept that simply saying that the members should be allowed to make their own decisions will not necessarily produce the desired result.
There is no doubt that the current or previous operation of the Building Societies Act has been unduly restrictive and has prevented building societies from moving into related areas. In previous years, it has led to nonsense whereby people who thought that they were mutual members of a building society because they were savers found that they were precluded from acquiring a mortgage or changing their mortgage because of the restrictions that were imposed on building societies. I have been in that situation, and I quite understand that members of building societies do not regard that as an impressive example of the flexibility and function of a building society.
I do not wish to oppose the regulations, and I accept the qualifications that the Economic Secretary has made. I simply wish to make the marker that, as we move into increasing diversity and flexibility, with which building societies are allowed to respond to the developments within banking, I hope that we do not lose sight of the fact

that there is benefit in mutuality and in having local and regional knowledge. The best result of the regulations will be if some opt to take advantage of the regulations and move in different directions so that we continue to have a diversified system of mortgages and banking which is national and regional and offers a genuine choice rather than a bland, across-the-board picture which makes choosing between one society or bank and another a lottery that makes no difference.
Real choice matters. The regulations do not preclude choice; they extend choice. But we should be aware of the dangers of opening up too quickly and leading too many building societies down a similar path and so restricting diversity.

Mr. Chris Smith: I should like to comment briefly on two points which have arisen during the debate, and first to take up the argument made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill). In an uncharacteristic display of incompetence, he departed from the Minister's injunction that this was not a party political matter and sought to characterise it as a party political matter.
The hon. Gentleman based his entire argument—that the regulations provide more than adequate safeguards —on a rather cack-handed attempt to besmirch one organisation, for which I hold no brief, that has engaged in a campaign against the flotation of Abbey National. His was an inaccurate and rather unfair attempt to rest an argument on flimsy foundations.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my family founded the Abbey National building society. I believe that the object of the regulations would be much approved by its founders, as they were criticised in the 1870s because they were supposed to be taking away from smaller societies the opportunity to look after their investors. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as we approach 1992, it is important that building societies should compete and that they should be able to provide the kind of service which is relevant to the late 19th and 20th centuries?

Mr. Smith: I should have known that an hon. Member with the hon. Gentleman's name was part of a family which founded a major financial institution. The hon. Gentleman is correct. We trawled over this subject at considerable length a few weeks ago when we considered a statutory instrument. I said clearly that there is a need for building societies to compete in the modern financial world and that that instrument gave building societies the opportunity and flexibility that they require to do that. There is no need to convert to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants.
The Economic Secretary said that it would not be reasonable or sensible to place a duty of impartiality on the board of a building society when sending out literature before the final transfer document. It is Abbey National's stated intention to put out several pieces of literature before the final transfer document. We believe that it is sensible and reasonable to put a duty of impartiality on it. The Economic Secretary said that, if we did that, the board would be censored but its critics would not. We should remember, however, that the board sends out literature at the members' expense. It is members, through the society,


who fund such literature, whereas any opposing literature is paid for entirely out of the pockets of the members involved. That is a crucial difference.

Mr. Butterfill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: No. I am drawing to a conclusion.
I hope that the Economic Secretary's mind is not closed on this matter and that he will consider it during the summer recess. It is an important matter, and I hope that, although we shall allow the regulations to go through without a Division, we shall be able to consider closely any possible and necessary improvements to the procedures for conversion.

Question put and negatived.

Road Transport

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6048/88 on social legislation relating to road transport.
In December 1985 the EC approved two regulations —3820/85 and 3821/85—prescribing the maximum permitted driving hours and minimum rest periods for drivers of goods and passenger vehicles, and providing for the use of tachographs for checking drivers' activities. The House debated the regulations in draft form in March 1984 and the related Transport Act 1968 regulations on 15 July 1986. Those concerted regulations, which apply to both domestic and international driving, came into effect on 29 September 1986.
The EC regulations were in many ways a "British kilometre post" or a "European milestone". Against the decision by the Council of Ministers in May 1985 to implement the single market by 1992, they were an attempt to provide harmonised rules on driving in the interests of fair competition, improved working conditions and road safety, while at the same time providing sufficient flexibility to meet the diverse needs of a modern transport industry. Those regulations were not everything that the United Kingdom Government would have wished. They represented the results of over two years' difficult negotiation with other member states in Europe. But as a package, they were acceptable to us.
The draft proposals that we are considering tonight, those contained in EC document 6048/88, have two strands. Both relate to the 1985 regulations. First, there is a proposed directive aimed at better enforcement of the regulations. Making sure that the agreed rules are complied with by means of more and standard checking procedures must be in everyone's interest. The Government fully support the aims underlying the directive on checking procedures. The second strand is the proposal for a new regulation amending the regulations. The Government are opposed to the proposed changes to the existing regulations.
The drivers' hours and tachograph regulations have three main objectives—to promote road safety by requiring drivers to have adequate rest and breaks and preventing excessive driving, to ensure that competition between hauliers and coach operators in this area is fair and on a common basis, and to give drivers reasonable conditions of work and leisure and prevent their exploitation.
To achieve those objectives within what the regulations provide for, efficient, effective checking on a standardised basis by all member states is necessary. The directive sets out to achieve that. It has been discussed in detail by officials in Brussels and was considered by the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg on 20 June. There is widespread support. Agreement on the details is close, but it cannot be approved until Parliament has pronounced on the requirements. The opinion of the European Parliament is also required. In explaining the draft directive to the House, I will endeavour to indicate where modifications to the Commission's proposals contained in document 6048/88 are contemplated by the Council.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister say that nothing could happen until the House of Commons did something. Is this not one of the matters covered by article 100A whereby it can be considered by a majority vote? Or am I quite wrong in that?

Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure. If I can give my hon.Friend an answer in a moment, I will. I would prefer to explain why the——

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend does not know. That is outrageous.

Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend has asked me a question. Perhaps I might be allowed to respond in my own way to the question he has chosen to ask.
The first part of what is proposed is acceptable, subject to minor modifications. The second part is not only not acceptable to us, but we think will be unacceptable to all member states. Therefore, the point raised by my hon. Friend does not appear to be terribly relevant.
The main substance of the directive is contained in draft article 3. This specifies—article 3(1)—the annual level of checking to be carried out by member states—30 per cent. of vehicles in circulation and 30 per cent. of operators. Modifications to this have been suggested and the Council looked favourably on an alternative of checking 1 per cent. of working days carried out under regulations 3820 and 3821 in each country as represented by the daily tachograph charts. At least 15 per cent. of the checking of charts under the alternative regime would have to be carried out at the roadside. Neither the Commission's original requirement nor the alternative proposal would cause difficulties for the United Kindom. Our checking is done by the Department of Transport and Northern Ireland traffic examiners as well as by police officers. The Department of Transport's national enforcement plan sets out, among other things, the checking requirements for traffic examiners. They will meet the levels proposed in the directive. We are planning to check over 1 million daily tachograph charts a year.
Articles 3(2) to 3(6) specify that the checks should be carried out at the roadside and at the operators' premises, and give the items to be considered by investigating officers. Modifications considered by the Council would further amplify these requirements by giving better and more detailed guidance on what these checks should entail, which would be useful.
Article 3(7) requires the numbers and results of checks to be conveyed to the Commission annually. We consider that this requirement is already present in article 16 of EC regulation 3820/85.
Article 3(8) requires authorities to carry out checks at operators' premises at the request of another member state concerned. This would cause no difficulty for the United Kingdom. We consider such co-operation necessary to prevent those who abuse the rules escaping detection by crossing national borders.
More general requirements for simultaneous checking operations and the exchange of data between member states are set out in articles 4 and 5. Article 4 requires member states to carry out simultaneous checks on four specified days each year. While we support the underlying idea of highlighting the importance of checking and demonstrating member states' commitment to it, we feel that to pre-advertise the dates of the combined operations

would be somewhat naive. I suspect that this is one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) had in mind. The Council has considered an alternative whereby member states would carry out at least twice-yearly concerted operations with at least one other member state. This would be a better arrangement. I suspect that those who break the rules would think that it is a worse arrangement, which is one of the reasons why we support it.
Article 5 specifies the data that are to be exchanged between member states on breaches of the regulations. Article 17(3) of regulation 3820/85 and article 19(3) of regulation 3821/85 already require data exchange, and we consider the further proposed provisions to be unnecessary. The Council has considered an alternative which would simply specify that the bilateral data exchanges under the present regulations should take place every 12 months, while allowing other specific requests on demand. This is a better and more flexible solution.
Articles 1, 6 and 7 are purely definitional and procedural. Article 2 lays down 1 January 1989 as the date for implementing the directive. Again, this would cause no problems for the United Kingdom.
The Government's position on the proposed directive is one of support, subject only to the minor modifications I have outlined. Enforcement of the rules is crucial. I feel confident that the House will want to give its support to the objective of achieving better standardised checking procedures among all EC member states. The draft regulation in EC document 6048/88 would have the effect of amending the present regulations 3820 and 3821/85. The House will note that the intention of the proposal is to
clarify certain definitions in order to avoid misinterpretation and abuse.
This is a laudable aim, but examination of the draft articles shows that either the real aim or the effect is to change radically the present regulations.
Agreement on regulations 3820 and 3821 came only after more than two years of hard and detailed discussions in Brussels. Both sides of industry were consulted during those discussions. In those negotiations we could not expect to have it all our own way, but there were positive results. Benefits for drivers were increased weekly rest, up from 40 to 45 hours, and decreased driving, down from 92 to 90 hours in a fortnight. Benefits for operators were increased operational flexibility, with the ability to increase daily driving from 9 to 10 hours twice a week, and to postpone part of daily and weekly rest subject to later compensation for the drivers. Both sides would have wanted more, but the new rules represented a reasonable, hard-won compromise arrived at between member states and, overall, the best deal we could negotiate for both sides of the road and passenger transport industries.
The regulations were implemented less than two years ago. Quite significant costs were involved in implementation. It meant retraining the whole of the work force in the freight and passenger industries as well as officers in the enforcement agencies. Those costs were borne by Government, operators, unions and police forces. They applied not just here but across the whole of the Community. It is too soon to contemplate radical changes, and that is what the small print of the draft regulations implies.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: My hon. Friend listed all the organs that had to pay the cost of this. Has he not missed out the most important one —the consumer, to whom all the costs are, in the end, passed on?

Mr. Bottomley: I apologise to the House for dealing with the technical issues in the main. When I was taking the draft regulations through the House, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) will acknowledge, I made it clear that the aim was not to increase costs to consumers or the end users of the transport industry but to provide flexibility, as we called it. The Transport and General Workers Union, and some who spoke in support of its views from the Opposition Benches, argued for a relaxation of drivers' hours regulations and the abolition of some of the duty hours requirements. During those debates, there was no suggestion of increased costs to those paying for road haulage. My argument was to allow flexibility so that drivers would not be faced with ludicrous situations. For example, a driver might run out of hours half an hour's drive away from the depot. He would have to ring up the depot manager, who would come out in a car. The driver would drive the car back and the manager would drive the truck back. Such situations are ludicrous, even before we move on to the provisions in the new regulations.
My hon. Friend has rightly made a point that the Government take seriously and, if there were a choice, we would want to ensure that we were taking cost compliance analysis fully into account. The House can be assured that this issue comes up neither under these regulations nor in the changes that came two years ago. No doubt the hon. Member for Stretford will correct me if I am wrong on that.
I was explaining why the second part of the draft directive is wrong. It comes too soon because the industry is just beginning to settle down under the new rules, because industry and Governments—not just this one— should not be asked to bear the additional cost that would be involved and because the changes proposed would bring no new benefits and would in fact bring disbenefits. To put it less diplomatically, it is just wrong and should not happen.
In opening up the regulations for revision, as is proposed in the draft regulation, it is not certain that the United Kingdom could retain some of those important points, hard won in negotiations last time round. The draft regulation has not been considered in detail by officials in Brussels or by the Council. It would seem that it commands no significant measure of support among member states. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will accept this point. The answer to his question, which I should have been able to answer immediately, is that the directive and regulations would be subject to majority voting by the Council, if necessary. I hope that my speech has made it plain that this is not necessary and that the unacceptable second half does not have support, while the acceptable first part does.
Many of the difficulties arise in the context of definitional points contained in article 1. This would change the present definition of the "week" from the fixed period between midnight Sunday to midnight of the following Sunday to any period of seven days, this period starting when the driver starts driving following a weekly rest period. It is difficult to see any benefit whatsoever in

this change. It would be to revert to the position that existed before regulation 3820. The "fixed week" was introduced in the present regulations to counteract the abuses under the "rolling week" system. The proposal would simply reintroduce those abuses. If every driver has a different starting point for calculating weekly rest and compensation requirements, the difficulties of both comprehension for drivers and enforcement are enormous. That was the position which existed before Septernber 1986. At a more practical level, the change would involve altering the software systems used for computer scanning of charts by enforcement agencies and commercial bureaux. I do not regard that as the most important reason for imposing this definitional change in the regulation to change the regulations.
Article 2 refers to the mandatory exemption from the social regulations of vehicles used for sewage, flood protection, water, gas and so on. It seeks to limit this exemption to vehicles used by public authorities or under contract to public authorities. The present regulations exempt all vehicles carrying out the specified transport operations. We fought hard to achieve that during the earlier negotiations. If private operators are competing with public authorities for the same work, they must compete on equal terms. That is fundamental to this Government's policy and the requirements of the single market. We would not find the proposed amendment acceptable.
Article 3—amending article 6 of the existing regulations —would limit driving to nine hours—10 hours twice a week—in any 24-hour period. The present regulations define these driving period limits as coming between claily rest periods. This amendment would prevent a driver who had driven for nine hours and then taken an 11-hour claily rest from driving again for another four hours. That seems to be an attempt not only to limit driving, but to limit total working duty time. The House will recall that that was raised during the discussions of regulation 3820 but found no support among member states. We would not wish to see duty limits reintroduced through the back door by this proposed regulation.
There is a great deal more at this level of detail inherent in the draft amending regulation. I would be willing to explain further if the House wishes. I have probably sufficiently demonstrated the point that if the laudable aim of the draft regulation were to clarify definitional points, the draft before the House is flawed. I would not claim that the regulations as we have them are perfect, but they represent a reasonable compromise set of rules capable of practical enforcement. If and when the draft regulations come forward for detailed discussion in Brussels, the United Kingdom Government would wish to make the points I have explained to the House.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) asked about consumer interests, but the other interest that should be taken into account in our discussions is road safety.
We must establish a balance between the number of hours that drivers work and the costs to industry and the consumer, while ensuring that drivers are not forced to work overlong hours. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is in everyone's interests. In 1984, in


a transport debate, the Minister of State, Department of Transport, now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
There is no disagreement about the broad objectives of the regulations. Since the 1930s, Governments of all complexions have recognised that commercial pressures can lead transport operators and drivers to indulge in excessive driving that can endanger both themselves and other road users … one's own common sense is enough to show that tired drivers are dangerous."—[Official Report, 3 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 132.]
I agree with the Minister that the regulations, in common with a lot of European legislation that comes before the House, are not helpful. It is a mystery to me why there is such mad pressure to introduce some sort of European standardisation when it would not be in the interests of the consumer or road safety.
The way in which this matter will be dealt with by the Council of Ministers is important. I hope that when the crunch comes the British Government—should they find themselves isolated—will be able to prevent the introduction of the regulations.
The directive is a different matter and it contains some things of merit. However, the Minister is right to draw attention to the nonsensical idea of having four days a year.——

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Eurodays.

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Eurodays on which the forces of law, order and enlightenment will move to prevent abuse by the already extremely suspicious travelling commercial traffic. It is obvious that they will be just as prepared for those Eurodays as the Department of Transport. It is a ludicrous idea and why the Commission put it in the directive is a mystery.
It would be wrong not to acknowledge the sense of the Commission's suggestion that about 30 per cent. of vehicles should be checked every year. The Minister claimed that the Department would have no problems with that, but I am a little more sceptical. I know that the Department of Transport insists that it is on the way to being able to check such numbers, but I am not sure whether that is based on accurate statistics of how many vehicles are already checked. There are considerable difficulties with enforcement. The number of traffic inspectors is relatively small—perhaps fewer than 200 are in charge not only of enforcing tachograph compliance, but of the overloading of lorries and so on, all of which takes considerable time.
In June this year Department of Transport inspectors, in co-operation with the police, cracked down on foreign vehicles on the Ml. It was found that about nine out of 10 of them were in breach of regulations of one sort or another—not all to do with tachographs. If we are serious about enforcement we shall need more traffic inspectors, and unless the Minister can tell the House that the money and political will are available for such enforcement, by providing more inspectors, it will not take place.
The aim of checking 30 per cent. of vehicles a year is laudable, but enforcement is bedevilled by various factors, including the growth of international traffic. With the approach of 1992 and of much traffic from the non-English speaking world, Britain's police will face considerable problems. I note in the directive the suggestion that police should be issued with a language

chart which will allow them to converse at least at a basic level with non-English speaking drivers—or with those who choose to be non-English speaking when their vehicles are pulled up at the roadside. I am assured that the scheme operates successfully in Germany, where the police have comprehensive language charts that allow them to monitor and enforce their traffic regulations. That is not done here, so I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to the quality of the charts for his inspectors and the police who will be involved.
I also draw the House's attention to another point raised by the Minister—the connection between roadside checks and checks at premises. It is critical that both are done. Roadside checks are important, but if there is no follow-through at the place of work where the tachograph records are kept for a longer period there can and will be widespread abuse of the system.
It might be useful if I mentioned to the Minister an amendment to the directive that was proposed in the European Parliament by a Labour Member, who said that it would make sense to have a regulation that made it compulsory for all drivers to be issued with consecutively numbered record tachograph discs, so that when stopped drivers would have to show—this could easily be checked —their tachograph records. Otherwise, they could say that they had slipped in new ones five minutes before and did not have the other ones because they had just taken over their cabs. It is important that such physical checks take place.
The relevant trade unions, which have always taken a line that is undeniably related to the safety of their members and that would avoid their being pressurised by their employers, have told me that it would be valuable if the discs were signed by an authorised employee of the company concerned. The argument runs that an authorised signature would wonderfully concentrate the minds of those involved, and there would be no systematic attempt to abuse the tachograph system. Such abuse is unfortunately all too prevalent now.
I want to make a number of points on the existing situation. The Minister has drawn attention to the importance of recognising how impractical the proposed new regulations are, but it is equally important to recognise the problems of the present system. There is no particular merit in the European Commission's proposal. The Commission has not helped us, but we must recognise that there is the potential—some would suggest that it exists already—for large-scale abuse.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that tachograph charts should be signed by the operator when they are issued to the driver or when they have been checked by the operator after being used by the driver?

Mr. Lloyd: Both. It would be helpful if the company took steps to guarantee that the discs issued to drivers were recorded and that they were signed back in at the end. That would establish a proper mechanism by which to check which discs went out.
There are abuses of the present regulations. Under the present system there is a global limit of 90 hours over two weeks and an allocation of up to 56 hours in any one week. It is difficult to avoid the possibility of a driver working 56 hours in two consecutive weeks. In the first week of a four-week cycle he could operate for only 34 hours a week, allowing him to operate for 56 hours in the second and


third weeks, to be followed by 34 hours in the fourth week. That is against the spirit and perhaps even the letter of the regulations. However, without enforcement, that is difficult to stop.
Article 3 provides for limited driving periods of 56 hours for one week or 90 hours for two weeks. Does that mean any period of two weeks, however defined, or two consecutive weeks? That may be a question of semantics, but it is not unimportant if a driver operates 56 hours on two consecutive weeks.
In the same vein, there is a real question about rest periods. The Minister said that he did not want to reintroduce the old system of duty hours through the back door. Nevertheless, there is a widespread practice of getting round the regulations whereby a driver uses his rest period for loading and unloading so that rather than being a rest period it is merely a period during which the tachograph is not operating.
It is important that the rest period should be a physical break, not simply an alternative form of work. Drivers can operate many hours a day while still complying strictly with the letter of the regulations. Fatigue is dangerous, as the then Minister for Public Transport said in 1984. That fatigue is dangerous whether it is caused by loading and unloading or by driving. I hope that the Minister will address that point.
It has also been suggested that there is fairly wide abuse of the tachograph system in terms of the weekly break entitlement. It is possible to ask a driver to pull over to the side of the road, but the driver's tachograph record over a long period is not always examined. The weekly break entitlement of 45 hours is spelt out in the regulations, but, because it is possible to take advantage of the exemptions and move to a 36-hour break, or even, in some circumstances, a 24-hour break, drivers can regularly operate with 36-hour or 24-hour breaks without compensating in the following weeks, and that is a widespread abuse.
There is some advantage in article 5 of the Commission's regulations because that makes it clear that any compensation has to take place in the following week, not simply over a prolonged period. That depends on the mechanisms for enforcement. I hope that the Minister will turn his attention to how that breach of the regulations could be avoided.
I should like to put a technical point. Under article 4 the break of 45 minutes in every four and a half hours driving period would have to be taken within that period. The present position is that the 45-minute break can be taken after the four and a half hour driving period. There is a difference of interpretation between the police and the Department of Transport. The police argue—they are supported by some of the trade unions—that for every four and a half hour driving period there should be a 45-minute break. The Department of Transport seems to argue that as long as the 45-minute break is taken after the initial four and a half hours, it is possible to continue the rest of the nine or 10 hour driving period without any extra break. To that extent there would be an advantage in the idea promoted by the Commission that the 45-minute break should be integrated into the four and a half hour period. It would avoid dispute between the Department of Transport and the police. On this issue I think that the Department of Transport is wrong.
This is a fairly technical debate, but it is important because we are talking about road safety. I have already

made it clear that I do not see the relevance of the European Commission's proposals for new regulations. However, some aspects would be useful. The Minister should continue with his declared intention to ignore the Commission on the regulations. I note that tonight the Prime Minister was distancing herself significantly from the European Commission. I am sure that that will give heart to some Conservative Members. On that issue, if not on much else, I have some sympathy with the Prime Minister's position. The Minister should note the position of his leader and make it clear to the Commission that the regulations would be dangerous in terms of what we are trying to promote. However, I hope that he will accept that it would be sensible to introduce some aspects into the British legal system because they would enhance road safety in Britain.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I want to ask three specific questions. The Commission's proposals on driving hours are outrageous. The starting and finishing times for weekly and daily driving would become less suited to the irregular patterns of work within the road haulage and passenger transport industries as would the compensating rest period arrangement. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the outrageous proposals.
How will the regulations be determined? I have become concerned—from what she said today it seems that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is also concerned —about the attitude of Ministers in the Council to the issue of majority voting or unanimity. The Prime Minister said that she is concerned that some of the directives coming before the Council are unsuited to common sense and to the interests of the United Kingdom. When we discuss the directives I ask Ministers repeatedly whether we are dealing with an issue of majority voting or unanimity. The Minister, as always, has been extremely courteous and said that this was an issue for majority voting.
The biggest worry is that the Commission in its quest for an extension of its powers is forcing, under article 100A, issues that should never be matters for majority voting. I suspect that the proposals should probably be dealt with under article 75, which would, according to the paper, have been an issue for majority voting and that the proposals are simply an extension or clarification of the 1985 regulations on driving hours.
Whenever proposals come up before the Council, the Government must first ask whether there will be an unanimous or a majority vote. If the Government take the view that the decision should not be taken by a majority vote, they must challenge the decision at the first instance because, unless the challenge is issued immediately, it is impossible to alter the basis of the consideration, unless there is unanimity in the Council.
Even if the provisions will not be effective—I suspect that they may come under the treaty of Rome's regional article 75—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues to inquire about the basis of voting before discussions start. If they do not, they may find themselves with their trousers down, having something pushed through by majority vote. I appeal to the Minister to have a word with the Home Secretary on the issue of summer


time which was found out, belatedly, to have been decided on the basis of majority voting. It is too late to change that, unless everyone else agrees.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us what was the view about article 2 of those who were at the Council meeting. The most worrying things about the proceedings in the Commission are the extension of Socialism and the favours for public enterprises. The Minister will know that, in almost every aspect of the Commission's current policies, we see all the things that we thought a Thatcherite Government were against—extension of subsidy, control, centralisation and protectionism. The Minister must surely be aware that the Commission, under the present leadership, and the Council are forcing through measures that we in this country have fought against.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, for example, local authorities are now instructed that they must put services out to competitive tender to ensure a fair balance of decision-making, but, if he looks at article 2, he will see that there is a specific proposal that private contractors should not be treated in the same way as public authorities. I appeal to him to look at page 7 of the document where it states specifically that article 2 would amend article 4
by excluding from its scope only those vehicles used by Public Authorities or under contract to Public Authorities in connection with the provision of the public services listed in paragraph 6.
It goes on to state that
With the increasing 'privatisation' of public services, this ensures that private operators who provide such services are not exempt … unless they are under contract to Public Authorities.
I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to say what were the views of the various members of the Council on article 2, which is simply an extension of Socialism and undermines a Bill that the Government fought hard to get through this Parliament. The Minister must be well aware that under majority voting, although drivers' hours themselves may be rejected, it is possible for some compromise to be brought forward which might include something of that sort. I hope that the Minister is watching that, and that he can give us some kind of assurance.
I also appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us what he means by saying that we must ensure that enforcement is improved. He must know what the rules are and what is happening. He must know some of the standard stories that I have been passing on to him, for example, about Southend. He will know from his colleagues and from Ministers in the Foreign Office, who have been helping me, that although Community regulations made it an essential part of Community law that a bus could go from Ostend to Frankfurt, there were discussions four years ago between the Foreign Secretary and Herr Genscher, who was then the appropriate German Minister. The Minister will know that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office took infraction proceedings at the Commission and that there were flights across the sea to German Departments, but that there was constant blockage against Community rules. The final blockage was when the authorities in Frankfurt claimed that they could not find a parking space for the bus.
My hon. Friend the Minister may also be aware from a question that I asked this week that a firm called Upsons in Southend runs splendid buses to Germany. The company has been astonished to find out that it is now being charged a levy of so much per metre, per passenger for taking a bus into Germany. If we are to have equal treatment and fairness, it is unlikely to be lawful for that to be done.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a rather different attitude is adopted to transport regulations from that adopted to other regulations. I hope that he will come to Kent to see some of the ports where we have the appropriate arrangements for testing vehicles that come from abroad. He should ask some of the operators and inspectors about the percentage of vehicles found not to conform with the current regulations.
I hope that the Minister will think about my three questions and give me some assurances. I ask him to clarify the status of the proposal to amend European Community document No. 3820/85. Is it dead? Will the Council not discuss it again? Is the Council planning a mini-directive to cover only certain parts of the document? It is rather a sad moment for parliamentary sovereignty, this being a day when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made some splendid remarks about Parliament's control of this sort of matter. We are discussing an issue which was discussed in the Community on 20 June. We want merely to know what the next step will be. Is the issue dead or is it still alive? Will we see a mini-directive, with article 2 being passed by a majority vote?

Mr. David Marshall: As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) has made most of the main points, I wish to ask the Minister only four simple questions, which I hope he will answer.
First, will it be possible for a driver to work two weeks of 56 hours each back to back, and to continue to do so?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: No.

Mr. Marshall: Thank you. Secondly, can the Minister guarantee enforcement of the regulations? There are only about 200 Department of Transport inspectors. How will he manage to achieve his target of 1 million checks per annum? Is that figure sufficient? It will amount only to about a 30 per cent. check. Should not the Minister be setting his sights higher?

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has asked an important question about 56-hour back-to-back weeks. Would he care to——

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: With respect, I do not think that I am in a position to do so.
Would my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) care to press the Minister on the issue? The Minister maintains that the regulations will prevent the working of 56-hour back-to-back weeks, but are the enforcement provisions sufficient to guarantee that a driver who is confronted with two 56-hour weeks will not say, "Of course, I am going to work the two weeks." Enforcement is important.

Mr. Marshall: Some of us have doubts about the sufficiency of the enforcement provisions. The Minister may be able——

Mr. Bottomley: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) would not allow me to intervene. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) for allowing me to do so. The hon. Member for Shettleston has more courtesy than the hon. Member for Stretford.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) was intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) when the Minister asked him to give way. That is why the hon. Member for Stretford did not give way.

Mr. Bottomley: I did not think that I would get away with that observation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There cannot be more than 90 hours worked in any fortnight. That means that anyone who works two 56-hour weeks back to back is breaking the law. Sadly, we have

begun to learn—if we did not know before—that passing laws does not make people obey the law. We know, however, that there cannot be total enforcement, for that would mean that nothing else would happen. We must create the right conditions and penalties so that individuals find that the chances of being caught, multiplied by the penalty, bring them into the paths of righteousness.

Mr. Marshall: I have my doubts. I think that there will still be a temptation to break the law.
Thirdly, I ask the Minister to estimate the increased costs that will be incurred by the road haulage and coach industries, and by Government, who will be responsible for implementing the regulations.
Fourthly, thousands of overloaded lorries are entering Britain. If the inspectors are spending all their time checking drivers' hours, how will they be able to check vehicles to ensure that they are not overloaded, especially those that are carrying hazardous and toxic substances or dangerous chemicals? What measures does the Minister propose to take to prevent overloaded lorries entering and leaving Britain in even greater numbers when inspectors are spending all their time checking drivers' hours?

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend the Minister has told us that steps are being taken under article 100A. I have said on many occasions as a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation that the expenditure memorandum, copies of which we have been supplied with, states clearly that matters are proceeding under article 75. I have great difficulty in understanding how that switch is taking place. One can only conclude that it is more convenient to deal with it under article 100A, for the reason that it will be dealt with by majority voting. On 23 June, an article of mine appeared in The Times in which I clearly stated that I was very concerned about the way in which this matter was proceeding. There is increasing evidence of creeping federalism in Europe.
It may be that at this late hour this is a glazed-eye subject, and that it is just too boring for the British Parliament, whereas this issue is being suborned—and this is just one instance of it—by a system within which there is an increasing tendency for the Commission to take more and more power over this Parliament. We must face the fact that that is happening.
The Prime Minister has made her own position entirely clear. She is deeply concerned about that drift. M. Delors of the European Commission has made it clear that he wants European government. I am not—emphatically not —against the European Community. Nor am I against sensible conclusions, some of which may have to be discussed and negotiated within the Council of Ministers. What I am against is the apparent bypassing of the House in respect of important legislation. A matter of this kind would be dealt with in a Bill on a line-by-line basis. Instead, we are presented with a series of continuing documents, which come before the Select Committee on European Legislation, and which are then referred back to the House at a late hour, when they are not capable of being intelligently discussed. I note that my hon. Friends seated behind me are nodding in approval at what I say, for the simple reason that what I say is absolutely true. There is no question about it.
Even in our own governmental paragraph, under the heading "Policy Implications" there is almost total condemnation of the provisions we are now considering. However, my hon. Friend the Minister, understandably, has made the best of the dog's dinner with which he has been provided. He has said that there are two halves——

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right in saying that some of this is absolute nonsense. However, it is clear which bits are nonsense and which are not. The reason why I am delighted to move the motion is that we want support in achieving the sensible bits, and support in getting rid of the nonsense.

Mr. Cash: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend say that. He is receiving great support from me in making the argument for continuing opposition to those parts which, from the point of view of the consumer, and from that of my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) and for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), contain a considerable amount of nonsense. It is nonsense of a kind that would do credit to Edward Lear.
As I recently stated in a memorandum I wrote on this very subject, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to return to Brussels in the knowledge that the United Kingdom Parliament profoundly disagrees with the nonsensical parts of the provisions.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I hope that I am not beating the hon. Gentleman to his punch, but he makes an important point. It is not good enough to acknowledge that some parts of the provisions are nonsensical and to seek agreement at Council of Ministers level or wherever. It is important that Parliament should recognise that, almost by definition, much of this legislation—whether it concerns traffic regulations or any other matter—is totally irrelevant. The hon. Gentleman addressed a point of principle about which areas are sovereign.
Perhaps the Minister will address another question. Given that the Prime Minister has placed on record the fact that she is extremely suspicious of this creeping federalism, to use the hon. Gentleman's own phrase, why does she not do something serious about it, because she is head of the Government?

Mr. Cash: The plain fact is that we have passed the Single European Act, and within the context of that Act are provisions that are subject to majority voting.
According to the explanatory memorandum, these measures are being taken under article 75. In his introduction, however, the Minister said that they were being taken under article 100A. The Select Committee on European Legislation—I was present at both sessions— recently cross-examined the Treasury solicitor on the use and misuse of article 100A. The Minister may or may not know—I am telling him because it is something with which the Committee is familiar—of the increasing tendency for the Commission to say, "We want the Common Market to operate." We in the United Kingdom Parliament also want the Single European Act to work effectively, but if there is a tendency for article 100A to be misused, we are forced to abide by majority decisions that may be invoked in a manner that is—to use the technical expression—ultra vires.
How can we deal with that? Not by saying, "Oh, well, that is just too bad; it is ultra vires." We must go off to the European Court for the matter to be determined on judicial review, in the context of the powers of the Court of Justice and article 177 of the treaty of Rome. We are in a new ball game. It is a question not of whether the House wants something done, but of viewing the matter through the telescope of the treaty of Rome and working out whether we are in a position to defend ourselves after the event.
If the Minister has grave doubts about whether the policy implications of his document dated 13 June suggest that the nonsensical parts should be dealt with effectively, he has no option but to take appropriate action in the Court of Justice. That appears to be the only means by which we can retrieve the situation at this stage. It is not good enough for us to wring our hands in the House and to say that we do not like this, that or the other.
Will the Minister bear in mind that a great deal of time would be saved, over and over again, if the United Kingdom Parliament were brought into consideration of these questions earlier rather than at this late hour? I notice my hon. Friend the Minister looking at his watch, and I do not blame him. We would then be in a position


to influence such consideration. Matters of this kind that would otherwise be dealt with by a billion Parliaments on a line-by-line basis should not be dealt with in such a truncated fashion.
If we are to do what the Prime Minister wants us to do, for heaven's sake let us consider the legislation earlier and in a proper way. By improving the scrutiny process of the European Legislation Committee and other Select Committees, we may at last be able to retrieve some of the power that has moved from this House.

Mr. Roger King: I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) has said. I was gratified to hear my hon. Friend the Minister comment on some aspects of the proposed change in the legislation, especially those relating to article 1.
Let me first declare an interest, as I want to mention a specific example of how badly article 1 will affect the operator concerned if it becomes law. I am a non-executive director of National Express Ltd., which is one of the success stories of the Government's deregulation policy in that it is now a privatised business and performs a vital and valuable function for the community.
A few facts and figures will give the House some idea of the extent to which this operator—the biggest national operator—has grown during the last few years. It carries 15 million passengers a year and its vehicles travel 5 million miles a week. There are 1,500 services and 900 coaches. It is an extensive operation. That does not include the Scottish City Link partner, which has about 150 coaches. It is a much smaller operation but it is extremely important. It is a unique European organisation. Its services are interlinked. They convey passengers from Penzance to John O'Groats and right across the country. They go to parts of the country that British Rail cannot reach and they are provided at a price with which the user is well satisfied.
The cost to the company and to other coach operators of having to accept article 1 and a return to the rolling seven-day week would be substantial. As the services are interlinked, to have drivers and those who run the coaches starting their weeks at different times and on different days would make it very difficult for the company to get the drivers on the right services at the right time.
When the European Commission looked at this aspect I do not think that it was aware of the extent of this type of operation, thanks to our policy of deregulation and free enterprise. There is no equivalent operation on mainland Europe. More power to my hon. Friend's elbow in combating the effects of article 1. It will only lead to passengers having to pay considerably more if article 1, the rolling seven-day week, has to be implemented.

Mr. Cash: Can my hon. Friend say how the Council of Ministers would be able to deal with his point?

Mr. King: I regret that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. I am presenting a factual case that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board and use in evidence to the European Commission. I hope he will say that there are exceptions to what is happening elsewhere in Europe and that our Government's

deregulation policy will almost certainly be extended to Europe in 1992 when European operators develop similar systems.
The rules are designed to ensure safety. Despite all the miles covered and the number of passengers carried, I am happy to be able to tell the House that according to the statistics with which the company has supplied me nobody has been injured or killed in the last two years. Many people believe that coaches are unsafe and that they are more prone to accidents than otherforms of travel, but the facts do not support that belief. Coaches provide a particularly safe form of travel. I hope the company's record of nobody having been injured or killed in the last two years will continue indefinitely. The safety of passengers must come first. The present rules and regulations came into effect two years ago. They have probably played their part in ensuring a high standard of safety.
It seems to me that there is often wide discrepancy between how each country interprets the spirit of the rules that are laid down. An olympic contestant has been banned from competing for life because he took steroids, yet some other European countries might not have inflicted such a high price. Russian children are probably fed steroids for breakfast. The requirements are laid down generally and we are all supposed to obey them, but some member states—and ours in particular—are a little more disciplined than other countries in enforcing them. Can we be sure that Spain will adopt the same determination to check vehicles, to look at tachographs and to implement safety requirements? The existing European laws say that it should, but there is some argument as to how conscientious some of our European partners are in containing drivers' hours, vehicle weights and so on.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a question whether the member states can look into these matters; that it involves their manpower, whether they can afford to do that, and whether the European Commission can provide the level playing field that is supposed to result from the proposals? Fair competition is not possible without an enormous amount of extra bureaucracy and expense for the member states and the consumers, unless there are sufficient people to make sure that the laws are being exercised in a manner which is fair to all.

Mr. King: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am not suggesting that there should not be European laws. We want to get those laws absolutely right. Of course their implementation will vary from state to state, depending on financial ability and the determination to police those laws, but that does not remove the necessity of having laws that are sensible and are worth implementing. We require uniformity across Europe for the standards whereby we produce, trade and provide services, but that may take some time.
The proposals that we are considering do not go very far to establish a broad consensus as to how we should regulate drivers' hours. As I have illustrated, in the United Kingdom there are circumstances which make the implementation of the rolling seven-day week which the European Commission would like, very difficult and wholly unneccessary.

Mr, Peter Bottomley: I remind those who read Hansard that our debate has shown that the House of Commons, on both sides and in many ways, takes seriously its debates on European draft directives. A variety of points have been made. We have heard the major constitutional points, which may be seen to follow from the Single European Act. Other issues have been brought forward concerning precisely when a three-quarter hour break may come in a four and a half hour driving period. We have heard examples from the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), from the Chairman of the Select Committee and from my hon. Friends who have spoken for the general interests of drivers and for the coach industry. I also understand that our debates are of concern to people in other parts of the country. I had to decide whether to wear my Transport and General Workers Union tie or my United Road Transport Union tie today. I am not a member of the URTU. I was sent a tie because it was rather jealous that I was always wearing the TGWU one.
I look forward to Friday when, at the suggestion of a member of the national executive of the TGWU road haulage section, I shall go and see it at work in west London. I suspect that I shall not hear too many complaints about the regulations that were taken through the House two years ago. There may be some, but in general we have managed to combine safety with flexibility.
The hon. Member for Stretford rightly reminded us that this is, in effect, a continuation of yesterday's debate on transport safety. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) reminded us how safe coach travel is. We intend to make it safer still by, for example, having speed limiters which will ensure that the reduction in speeding by coaches continues. There is less speeding in the road haulage industry. That is not true for light vans, but there is an improvement in major freight distribution.
The professionalism of drivers must be praised again and again. Not everyone reaches the highest standard, but we want to get the average standard up, the bad people out and the good to be able to earn their reward rather than for them to be cheated by the cowboys who break the hours regulations and the weight limitations.
I shall not go into enormous detail about our enforcement plans, but even without allowing for the efforts of the police, the Department of Transporfs own plans would meet the acceptable part of the draft directive's targets on checking tachographs. We take all the actions mentioned anyway.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) mentioned buses. I understand that the service from Southend to Frankfurt has now been approved. I shall not even dare read out Germany's explanation for the levy because I am not certain that it is acceptable to me, let alone to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What does the Minister think of it?

Mr. Bottomley: I have not had responsibility for buses for very long and I suspect that my hon. Friend the Minister of State may want to take a view of his own. The change in the ministerial team took place only about 24 hours ago, so my hon. Friend ought to allow us slightly longer to have some effect.
The House should not be too frightened of getting involved in discussion and negotiation in Europe. When I was at another Ministry, an anonymous Minister from another Community country asked me to explain why Britain is not so keen on the Vredeling draft fifth directive. It was after dinner and I was tired, and I said that half the people in Britain who oppose it have not read it and the other half who oppose it have read it. I thought that that was quite an entertaining answer, but he nodded wisely and said, "Nobody has ever explained it to me that clearly before."
If necessary, I shall continue to explain clearly in Europe, and to others who are interested, why some of the definitional changes that are proposed are crazy. I shall also explain why we should not put the private sector at a disadvantage when it provides services which were provided in Britain by a state authority, and still are in some other countries.
I should like to refer to the first joke in the April edition of Reader's Digest. Mr. Gorbachev is supposed to be driving to Moscow airport to meet the Prime Minister, and his driver refuses to break the speed limit, so they change places. They are stopped by the police but are let off because the junior police officer who stops them tells the senior officer that there is a very important person in the car. "Who was it?" asks the senior officer. "I do not know," says the junior one. "How do you know they are very important?" asks the senior one. "Well, the person in the car had Comrade Gorbachev as his driver."
I argue that the House provides the very important person for the country. When people make a half-baked proposal which they think will improve safety or flexibility, but which will not, they should see how Russia is learning the British lesson. It is that deregulation, competition and privatisation, while maintaining necessary safety standards, are all-important. If we had not had competition in the coach industry, as a result of which National Express is doing quite well and firms in Southend are running services to Germany, consumers would not be in such a good position. They would not be in that position if we did not have that small extra flexibility combined with protection for the driver in the drivers' hours regulations.
I doubt whether we would have obtained that flexibility without the European Community taking an interest. We would have found it more difficult to make changes domestically. We owe something to Europe, and many of us are willing to move forward with the single European market and we will be willing to argue our case. We will not succeed all the time, as I said two years ago when we discussed other draft regulations.
If the House will forgive me, I will not become involved in too many of the arithmetic questions raised by the hon. Member for Stretford. I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Gentleman persistently does his homework and brings forward interesting points.
We should understand that the key point made by the hon. Member for Stretford related to the 56 hours back-to-back. That would be illegal. The sensible proposals included in the motion and my speech related to how it will be possible to achieve higher standards of enforcement in other European partner countries. That is what the good bit achieves.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) reminded the House that we should be very careful about simply accepting declarations of article 100A and should


be prepared to use the European Court. I do not think that I am fully qualified to answer my hon. Friend's points, but I will ensure that they are passed on to those who wish to know that there is very strong support in the House for ensuring that, where possible, the European harmonisation is achieved to maintain minimum standards and to recognise equivalent standards elsewhere rather than simply to go for the common denominator which may be most convenient for the person who knows very little of what he is talking about.
One example is driver licensing. It is worth reminding the House, the people of this country and the rest of the European Community that this is the only country—with the possible exception of Ireland—which has a thriving minibus industry, not just in their manufacture, but in use by community groups, student organisations and people going to parties who hire them when one person drives and the others drink. No other country has that provision because their licensing requirements do not allow people to drive a minibus or vans weighing between 3·5 and 7 tonnes.
I hope to convince the rest of Europe not that Britain must eliminate that provision and service for the handicapped, poor, unprivileged and the elderly, but that the rest of Europe should consider what is happening in this country. I hope that they will discover that there is no road safety case for this ludicrous harmonisation although we are slightly bound by that in the Vienna convention. I hope that we can extend the provision to the other 200 million or more people in Europe so that they can enjoy what we have enjoyed here, so long as the safety case is made.

Mr. Cash: Which member states are in favour of the nonsensical provisions? Given that there is majority voting and presumably the member states in favour of the nonsensical provisions are against my hon. Friend the Minister, how can we carry the day? What can we do about that when we make protestations under the provisions of the explanatory memorandum policy, the implication of which could not be more emphatically condemnatory of the provisions? What on earth are we going to do about it?

Mr. Bottomley: I was not at the Council of Ministers meeting. However, I understand that no country supported the redefinition point. If one did, I suspect that the point would have made further progress. It is worth noting that the implementation date is supposed to be September this year. If others had supported it, that support would have been declared and I could have given the names off the cuff. I do not think any one else supports it.
A child who experiences darkness for the first time thinks that it will never become light again, but it becomes light in seven hours; the cycle is repeated. There may be, discussions, the cycle will be repeated and we will end up with the nonsense being jettisoned. The good things will be brought in and the level of enforcement will rise for the rest of the Community to the levels enjoyed in this country.
I hope that, partly as a result of this debate, there will be an opportunity for the private sector to come in and for competitive tendering—this is one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East—to come about. We want improved enforcement and opportunities

for the private sector. However, the basis of the consideration is an issue to which the House will want to return rather than have me go on too long about it now.
This has been one of the better debates which should inform people in the Community and the Commission. I hope that the European Paliament will come to the same view as the House—that we want to do the good things, not the bad ones.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has not answered my question about article 2, but perhaps he will say under which article the directive is proposed. Is it article 75 or article 100A? If it is article 75, will he ask his clever advisers —some of us are worried about the extent to which they are keeping up to date with European affairs—why the explanatory memorandum says that the voting procedure and a qualified majority apply, because article 75 of the treaty of Rome says:
For the purpose of implementing Article 74 …the Council shall, acting unanimously until … the second stage, … lay down, on a proposal from the Commission".
It clearly says that under article 75 there is not a majority vote but unanimity until the end of second stage.
Will the Minister say under which article the directive is proposed and why he mentioned qualified majority voting when article 75 of the treaty is abundantly clear? Is it not time that he arranged for his clever people to go on those splendid courses on Community law? These matters are terribly important, because every one of us will be affected by what the Community does.

Mr. Bottomley: I hope that those who read the debate will realise that the House is united about enforcement, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East supported, is unanimous in wishing to get rid of the nonsense in the draft directive and will not be too put off by the dissection of article 75 and the issues on majority voting that my hon. Friend raised. I do not want us to appear reluctant to work with others in the European Community because to achieve enforcement we need to do so. The best thing that I can do about the precise point that my hon. Friend raises is write to him and have a copy put in the Library. If that is unacceptable to my hon. Friend, he can now say why.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We are having a vital debate about future transport policy. I am merely asking under which article the directive is being proposed. This is one of the few opportunities that we shall have to discuss a Common Market proposal that will affect every person in the land. If we do not know under what article the scheme is being proposed, we do not know on what basis the majority voting will be conducted or on what basis the Minister will address the Council. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are one of the fairest-minded people that I have known in the Chair, but we must be given an answer before the debate concludes.

Mr. Bottomley: The simple answer is article 75.I do not want to go into detail about the more complicated answer, because I suspect that my hon. Friend knows more about it than I do. I encourage my hon. Friend to listen to me for one moment because it might be helpful to him and the House. We want to lift the parliamentary reserve on the good things, such as enforcement in other countries. We believe that not one other Community country supports the proposal to amend the regulations. We should send a clear message from the House that we are all united about


that, rather than have our lawyers and those of the Community spend time on a point that my hon. Friend makes inside and outside the House effectively and frequently.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Why does the explanatory memorandum say one thing but the treaty of Rome something different?

Mr. Bottomley: I thought that it was the right answer. If it transpires that I was wrong, I shall have no difficulty in saying that I was wrong. If it transpires that I was right, I shall write to my hon. Friend and say why I was right.

Mr. David Marshall: Earlier, I asked the Minister to give some idea of the costs involved, but it appears that he will not answer that question. I draw his attention to his Department's memorandum to the Select Committee on European Legislation. It says:
changes envisaged would impose further expense and new burdens on the road haulage and coach industries
and
would involve significant cost to central Government.
The Minister must have some idea what the additional costs will be. Will he give them to the House?

Mr. Bottomley: I believe that the additional costs of the first part of the enforcement will not be significant because our existing enforcement plan covers what the draft directive would require. That is why we would be prepared to accept that part, subject to this debate and the parliamentary reserve that would have to be put on in the Council of Ministers. We have made it plain that we regard the regulation to amend the regulations as unacceptable, and we have given our view that we think that other member states regard it as unacceptable as well. We have said that if members states came together and said that they wanted to accept the regulation to amend the regulations, there would be significant costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsburg) made that point first, and it was then made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. As we have the implicit support of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, people in Europe had better watch out, We are not having it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6048/88 on social legislation relating to road transport.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c).

PESTICIDES

That the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels in Food) Regulations 1988, which were laid before this House on 12th July 1988, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

CHROMIUM IN WATER

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4236/86, and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of the Environment on 11th July 1986 and 4498/88 on water quality standards for chromium; and supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that any such standards are based on clear scientific principles consistent with the proper protection of the aquatic environment.

ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9715/87 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th June 1988 on electromagnetic compatibility; and supports the Government in seeking adoption of the measure and in seeking to ensure that any Commission action in this field takes account of United Kingdom interests.

ANTI-DUMPING

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 5017/87 on protection against dumped or subsidised imports and 6358/87 and 5151/88 on anti-dumping and anti-subsidy activities in 1985 and 1986; and supports the Government's aims that anti-dumping measures should not be circumvented by assembly operations whilst ensuring that genuine inward investment is not discouraged and that United Kingdom interests should continue to be taken fully into account in the Commission's anti-dumping actions.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Opencast Mining (Marley Hill)

Mr. John McWilliam: Rather than delay the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg), who has a most important Adjournment debate this evening, my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) and I have decided that I shall present this petition, although it is signed by 684 of my constituents and by 349 of his. The petition reads as follows:
The Humble Petition of residents of the Metropolitan Borough of Gateshead.
Sheweth,
That the proposal to opencast mine coal in the area to the south of Marley Hill and remove the coal by road would result in the net destruction of jobs, cause blight to the countryside and congest the already inadequate roads.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House encourage the Secretary of State for the Environment to resist this proposal.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &amp;c.

To lie upon the Table.

Camden (Right-to-buy Legislation)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: This is only the second Adjournment debate that I have had in 18 years, which is a signal of how very angry I am at the way in which the London borough of Camden has been operating the right-to-buy scheme, and my extreme unhappiness about the way in which the Department of the Environment has been trying to permit my constituents to operate within the law.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his first debate on this subject. I hope that he will spare the House and me details of how the right to buy operates and concentrate on telling me why the Department has been so unwilling to help my constituents, and to implement our Act of Parliament. With my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew), I had a hand in drafting the legislation, and we included measures to be used against recalcitrant authorities. I am a little puzzled to know why my successors have been unwilling to follow our example. For example, Norwich council would not operate the right to buy. It took us to court and lost, and we did not need to take over its functions.
The London borough of Camden has, from the beginning, expressed its outright opposition to the right to buy. In May 1987, it made this very clear by removing official right-to-buy leaflets from the shelves in all its libraries. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction warned that he would send a task force of Government commissioners to sell council houses unless the hard Left toed the line. That was in May 1987 and after that Camden turned to dumb insolence and pretended to let the scheme operate. For example, one member of staff was doing all the work. It refused to sent out right-to-buy forms to tenants who asked for them and told those tenants that they had to call for them. I have already said that those forms were not available in the libraries. I circumvented that by obtaining a stock of them, which were available at my advice bureau. However, it was not my job to do that; that is what the council should have done.
The council also used other ways to put off its tenants from buying. It inflated service charges, but, fortunately, the Government have changed that part of the law. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall)—I do not blame him for his absence at this late hour—has some Camden properties in his constituency. He has been most active on behalf of those Camden tenants and he managed to make Camden offer an even more extraordinary reason for the delay than usual. It told him that it cannot define the correct boundaries of a particular property. I am sad to say that, in correspondence, the Department was apparently willing to accept that that was possible and that it was an acceptable reason.
Whenever tenants inquire about valuations or anything else they are told of massive delays. I have been receiving monthly performance, or lack of performance, figures, and at the end of June there were 1,884 overdue section 125 notices. I do not believe that the Department should ever have permitted that.
When tenants have bought their properties, the council has got back at them. It charges those people a higher rent than council tenants for the use of a garage. In some cases there is a £6 differential in such rents. I appreciate that, under present legislation, the Government can do nothing about that. Such practices, however, put off tenants from buying.
Alas, when I have drawn such cases to the attention of the Department, it has been rather slack about taking action. First, it summoned the leader and chief executive of Camden and wrote to me to say that it had met representatives of that borough on 14 May. Camden promised to put positive proposals before the Department. By August, Camden had not even recruited the staff, but it offered "news" in September. After further pressure from the Department, it was forced to employ 19 extra staff, but it took as long as was decently possible before appointing them—they were not all in post by November. My hon. Friend should note that, because of the Departments attitude, Camden got an extra six months' grace before complying with the legislation.
I asked the Department whether it would make Camden put conveyancing and valuations out to the private sector, but the answer was, alas, no. Even now, when I draw attention to individual cases, the Departments attitude is less than urgent. I informed the Department about a complaint that I had received from a constituent in Lissenden gardens. In March 1988 the London regional housing division wrote to Camden about that and said:
Bearing in mind that your authority is under a statutory obligation to issue an offer notice within 8 weeks of the admittance of the right to buy (or 12 weeks in the case of a leasehold sale) I am to say that Ministers are concerned at the delay that is occurring in this case. In the circumstances, I would be pleased if you could let me have your detailed comments on this matter, together with your best estimate of a date by which you now expeet to despatch an offer notice. I should be grateful for an early reply to this letter.
When someone is in statutory breach, one should ask for a reply within seven working days and not
for an early reply to this letter.
It took the Minister six weeks to fix another meeting with the leader of Camden council. Camden is laughing behind my hon. Friend's back and behind the back of the Government. Its message to me is, "Your Government are doing nothing," but I know that the Government will catch up with it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell me that nemesis has caught up with it. My hon. Friend does not have to face tenants week after week in his advice bureau. Five or six come to each of my surgeries complaining that they have to pay £40, £50 or £60 a week in rent when that money should be set off against their mortgages.
All the letters tell me that the purchase price is fixed at the date of application. That is marvellous, but many of my constituents have paid out hundreds of pounds in rent that they would not have had to pay if the Department had been willing to act more swiftly. As tenants grow one or two years older and their cases become one or two years out of date, mortgages become less easy to deal with. Now, after a certain amount of pressure from me, the Government say that they will introduce an amendment in another place to the effect that if, after a certain period, the council is in default, the rent will be set towards the purchase price. The Government are not even prepared to backdate that to Second Reading. They are producing a


lawyer's paradise—almost a page-and-a-half schedule of notice and counter-notice which not even I, who helped draft the original legislation, am sure I understand.
I ask my hon. Friend, who is new to his responsibilities, to put this schedule in workmanlike English and to simplify it to state that, if a property has not been sold by a certain date, or if the council has not complied with the statutory requirement, rent will automatically be set against purchase price unless the council can prove that it should not be. It should not be up to my constituents to serve notices on Camden; they have done that. It is up to Camden to comply with the law.
A greater difficulty has now arisen, and I ask my hon. Friend to recognise it. The Finance (No. 2) Bill provides that tax relief on purchases not completed by 1 August will operate on the property, not the people involved—unless they are husband and wife. Two sisters in my constituency were purchasing a property from Camden. Because Camden would not comply by 1 August, they ran the real risk of losing half the tax benefit that they should have had. Fortunately, they had a good solicitor, who has prepared a document that will satisfy the Inland Revenue, but there must be hundreds of such cases—I note that the Law Society is concerned about them—of people who will lose because Camden and other local authorities are failing to comply with the law.
I ask my hon. Friend to take this up with the Treasury. The Finance (No. 2) Bill cannot be amended now, but the Revenue should be persuaded to produce an extra-statutory concession to cover people whose only fault is that they happen to be buying from the London borough of Camden. I bet there are people in a similar position in Islington, Lambeth and Hackney, all of whose councils are defying the law and getting away with it.
I am sorry for being more vehement than my hon. Friend might have liked, but I have reached the end of my tether. I ask my hon. Friend to tell Camden that it has four weeks—or two months—in which to get its act together. I said earlier that there are 1,800 section 125 notices. They are valuations, and my hon. Friend could force Camden to go outside to have them done. The conveyancing could be done by outside solicitors. If Camden does not dramatically reduce the number of cases pending in the time stipulated, my hon. Friend should use the powers provided in the right-to-buy Act to take over the council's functions. I remind my hon. Friend that it will cost the Department more to carry out those functions. Then perhaps an action for surcharge could be taken out against the council by the district auditor. That would double the threat.
Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend not to allow the new schedule and the notice and counter-notice to set rent against purchase price stay in their present gobbledegook form. I apologise again for keeping my hon. Friend the Minister here late tonight, but this is a matter of real anxiety to many of my constituents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): It is essential that I should at the outset pay tribute to the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and

Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) has represented his con-stituents seeking to exercise their right to buy. Many of them, I know, suffered enormous frustration as a result of the shortcomings in Camden's performance, which my hon. Friend has so ably described. They could have no more determined champion. He has corresponded with Ministers regularly on this matter, both on behalf of individual constituents and more generally.
My hon. Friend's complaint is that Camden's performance in carrying out its right-to-buy responsibilities has been woefully inadequate, and that can hardly be disputed. Camden is one of the 11 authorities whose right-to-buy performance is formally monitored by the Department so that we can keep a regular check on its performance. The evidence of the figures suggests that the council has not been dealing with applications at a rate anything like sufficient to ensure that its tenants applying to exercise their right to buy are able to do so reasonably speedily.
There are two stages in the right-to-buy process for which statutory time limits are laid down and, rather than indulge in explaining the right-to-buy legislation, which my hon. Friend urged me not to do, it is important that I should explain precisely what that procedure is, so that I can explain how bad Camden has been.
The first stage is the landlord's notice admitting or denying the tenant's right to buy. That must normally be served within four weeks of the tenant's claim to exercise his right to buy and is not complex for the landlord in the vast majority of cases. Yet in May 1987, when Camden had virtually ceased issuing notices, there were over 800 cases where it had not complied with the statutory time limit.
However, I am glad to say that the latest report shows that there were no cases in which the first notice had not been served by the due date. Therefore, it is clear that the intensive lobby that my hon. Friend has mounted, and the way in which Department of the Environment Ministers have responded, have had that effect already.
The other stage for which there is a statutory time limit is the service of an offer notice under section 125 of the Housing Act 1985, giving the landlord's opinion of the price at which the tenant is entitled to buy. That must also include a statement of known structural defects and, in the case of a leasehold sale, details of service charges payable including binding estimates for repair and improvement costs in the first five years of the lease. The landlord has eight weeks in the case of a freehold sale and 12 weeks in the case of a leasehold sale to prepare that, starting from the date at which the tenant's right to buy is admitted.
The number of cases in which Camden council has not met that deadline has been rising alarmingly in recent months and is currently almost 1,900. The rate at which Camden issues offer notices has increased—I shall say more about that later—but not by nearly enough to match the increased number of applications.
We know from complaints passed on by my hon. Friend, and those that we receive direct from his constituents or others, that there are also delays in completing the legal formalities leading to sale when a tenant has decided to continue with his purchase on the basis of an offer notice. Statistics are less easy to interpret, since delays may be attributable to a variety of causes, some ascribable to the tenant, some to the landlord.
However, at the end of June there were 665 cases where completion was awaited, against an average this year of about 22 sales a month.
Against that background, I can understand my hon. Friend's wish that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should use his powers to take over Camden's role in processing sales, and I shall return to that specific point later.
It may well be that Camden is not the only authority in London whose performance in handling right-to-buy sales is less than satisfactory, but in numerical terms, the problems in Camden seem to be the most acute. All the evidence reflects that. A number of inner London boroughs have had difficulty in handling right-to-buy applications over the past 18 months. A major factor in that has been a substantial increase in the number of applications received. The number of applications by Camden tenants was, on average, 79 a month in 1986. That rose to 165 a month in January 1987, no doubt due in part to the higher discounts introduced in January 1987 for those buying flats under the right-to-buy. The trend has continued into 1988. The average monthly number of applications so far is 281, with 467 received in June alone. The Government are delighted that so many people are expressing an interest in becoming home owners. However, the number of applications is not easy to predict, and it is hard for local authorities to adjust to such an increase overnight when staff are scarce. I understand that.
I shall turn now to the steps that Camden council has taken in the past year to try to improve its performance. As my hon. Friend is aware, these have had some, albeit limited, success. Following a meeting to discuss the council's right-to-buy performance held last July, the council informed us that 19 additional posts were to be approved with the intention that the output of section 125 offer notices would increase to between 120 and 140 a month once they were filled. Those additional posts were approved, we were told, against a background of reductions in staffing and funding in other areas of the council's responsibility from which the right to buy was protected.
The council's output did begin to improve as the additional posts were filled. The number of offer notices issued in any month did not exceed 20 between February and September 1987, and has never been below 72 since. The council now seems to have reached its target of 140 notices a month promised last year. Greater central co-ordination, helped by additional staff, seems to be at the root of the improvement. I understand that the council's valuer and estates surveyor took on overall responsibility for right-to-buy matters in September 1987.
At a meeting earlier this week, the leader of the council acknowledged that the improvements delivered by the council were not sufficient to keep pace with the larger numbers of applications now being received, but said that the rate is over three times that in 1986. He said that the council is now considering proposals to establish a central

unit of administrators devoted to right-to-buy work and that that would involve some extra staffing. It was expected that that should enable the output of offer notices to be increased to some 180 a month well before the end of the year—possibly more if a greater number of those involved in right-to-buy work could be located in the same building.
That is a significant increase. However, it is clearly not sufficient if applications continue to be received at the present level. The leader therefore agreed that, in the light of the trends in applications in the autumn, the council will also consider whether further staff resources for right-to-buy work are necessary in the medium and longer term.
It is clearly important that the council should make the best possible use of existing resources, as well as devoting more to the right to buy. The leader said that there was no obstacle to staff working overtime on a voluntary basis and that the council was making every effort. The leader did not rule out the use of the private sector, for example in conveyancing, where that would help.
The leader has confirmed—he is prepared to be quoted —that it is the council's policy to fulfil its statutory obligations. That needs to go on record. He also pointed to the fact that additional staff resources had been devoted to the right to buy at a time of reductions elsewhere He also stressed—this is something that I welcome—that the council was dependent on the capital receipts from housing sales to maintain its repair programme. Against that background, he gave assurances that the case for extra staff would be considered urgently if the proposed reorganisation did not prove adequate.
The Department will continue to receive monthly progress reports from the council and will keep in contact with it over the steps it is taking, so that the Secretary of State can review the possible use of his powers of intervention. I shall give my hon. Friend a clear undertaking. It is abundantly clear to me, as it will be to him, that, if the situation does not improve in the short term, we should have no alternative but to use those powers.
My hon. Friend is, of course, primarily concerned about his constituents who have suffered unconscionable delay. I remind him, if I need to, that the amendments to the Housing Bill were designed to meet his concerns and those of many other hon. Friends on that issue.
I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the specific points that I have made and the assurance that I have given him. Although I took on these additional responsibilities only some 24 hours ago, I am nevertheless aware of his grave concern about this matter. I have enormous sympathy for the points that he has raised and am grateful to him for the additional information that he has supplied in the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Twelve O'clock.